"what is truth is rational; what is rational is not necessarily truth" is my favorite saying (i made it up long time ago). but i've never been sure about the first half of it. why truth has to be rational? is it really?
consulted with Jr. he suggested that probably it is based on the assumption that ultimately all things can be explained logically. or at least we believe so. when new evidence contradicts a "proven" truth, it causes a paradigm shift and new theory is then developed to accomodate all "facts". pushing still further and it probably also concerns of Godel's imcomplete theorem.
it's hard for me to think through it with absolute clarity and certainty. i will just leave it here by saying probably this is how i "define" truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment