Responses 001 (2009-2010)
This is the first of a series of brief responses to the list of questions given earlier.
Question:
To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics?
Response:
My instinct at first was to note that mathematics seeks consistency and hence 'rigs' the game to ensure that the premises and rules are always consistent. The answer to any problem in mathematics should therefore always be the same (or at least, consist of the same set of outcomes). In mathematics, truth is the state of having come to a conclusion that is fully and exhaustively consistent with all the initial rules and parameters. The tool for evaluating this state is reason; other tools are peripheral, although some have said that mathematics tries for linguistic consistency. Haha. The point about mathematics, I suppose, is that if you accept the initial conditions (the rules, logic, elements etc) then you are forced to accept the conclusion(s). Most people do.
In the arts, this 'truth' definition is not true; the rules are fully mutable and the elements are inconsistent in effect. Consider aesthetics: symmetry is pleasing, too much is not; contrast is pleasing, too much is not; harmony is pleasing, too much is not... and so on. It is always possible to debate the conclusions. Generally the first impact of the arts is to produce a reflexive physiological response. Reason comes later, and is often used to justify that initial response. This means that the first input is sensory, but the first response is emotional; the reason kicks in later, already biased (and allowed to remain so because of the mutability of the rules); and if you must, you try to convert this to language in order to communicate your response. Truth thus consists of subjective consistency, and perhaps not even that.
Ethics occupies some sort of middle ground. An ethical code is the integration of individual moral codes; this is why morality shades into ethics – a common morality simply means that each person's individual values and moral responses tallies with each other person's. The point at which realisation of this common morality occurs, and hence defines a code of responses common to the community, is the point at which an ethical basis emerges. Ethics is the study of the interaction of individual moralities in order to determine what everyone will agree to be the 'best' outcome. The problem with 'best' is that this is debateable, and the grounds for debate tend to stem from empathy and emotion as much as from reason. However, since it requires multiple perspectives, it tends to have a more broadly accepted 'truth' than the arts.
Comments?
Question:
To what extent is truth different in mathematics, the arts and ethics?
Response:
My instinct at first was to note that mathematics seeks consistency and hence 'rigs' the game to ensure that the premises and rules are always consistent. The answer to any problem in mathematics should therefore always be the same (or at least, consist of the same set of outcomes). In mathematics, truth is the state of having come to a conclusion that is fully and exhaustively consistent with all the initial rules and parameters. The tool for evaluating this state is reason; other tools are peripheral, although some have said that mathematics tries for linguistic consistency. Haha. The point about mathematics, I suppose, is that if you accept the initial conditions (the rules, logic, elements etc) then you are forced to accept the conclusion(s). Most people do.
In the arts, this 'truth' definition is not true; the rules are fully mutable and the elements are inconsistent in effect. Consider aesthetics: symmetry is pleasing, too much is not; contrast is pleasing, too much is not; harmony is pleasing, too much is not... and so on. It is always possible to debate the conclusions. Generally the first impact of the arts is to produce a reflexive physiological response. Reason comes later, and is often used to justify that initial response. This means that the first input is sensory, but the first response is emotional; the reason kicks in later, already biased (and allowed to remain so because of the mutability of the rules); and if you must, you try to convert this to language in order to communicate your response. Truth thus consists of subjective consistency, and perhaps not even that.
Ethics occupies some sort of middle ground. An ethical code is the integration of individual moral codes; this is why morality shades into ethics – a common morality simply means that each person's individual values and moral responses tallies with each other person's. The point at which realisation of this common morality occurs, and hence defines a code of responses common to the community, is the point at which an ethical basis emerges. Ethics is the study of the interaction of individual moralities in order to determine what everyone will agree to be the 'best' outcome. The problem with 'best' is that this is debateable, and the grounds for debate tend to stem from empathy and emotion as much as from reason. However, since it requires multiple perspectives, it tends to have a more broadly accepted 'truth' than the arts.
Comments?
Labels: Answers, Epistemology, Odd Questions
etched with acid at 9:49:00 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home