Philosophy: Debating Personal Truths

(Truth: The Science of Personal Conjecture)

Analyze and explain the epistemological implications of the following statement in terms of the lectures’ and text’s discussions of theories of truth and knowledge, as well as how we would live our lives (if such a statement is true): “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me.”

When trying to figure out anything the first thing most people do is access their standard logic. The brain is quite competent when it comes to sorting through rubble for the good and then arranging it in a useful fashion. When it is up to me, standard logic is the only tool I use to come up with a conclusion on anything. Sadly, I do not always make the rules, and so sometimes I have to follow them. Now, the rules say, that often, more than basic logical thought is required to deduce something when a basis of proof is needed. One of these above and beyonds of assaulting a problem is the standard scientific approach. This method utilizes preset standards and relations to enhance the likelihood of accuracy in a conclusion. Though this more trusted method extends beyond the realm of layman thought, it is not beyond the reach of the informed everyman, and so it can easily be used by most. Standard scientific knowledge is given more weight than solitary logic because it is the product of a group consensus. The thinking here is that if enough people buy into something then it is more likely to be broadly relevant. Even this method of supporting a claim is inadequate in many cases however, and a more powerful persuasive credential is required. This third method takes advantage of intensive studies done by other, more dedicated people. The studies which fall into this category are powerful thanks to their more specific nature. Geology, Sociology, Music Theory, etc., and yes, of course Philosophy all fall under the umbrella of this category, and each is a study into a specific thing. One of the best parts about using a focused field is that along with its unique terminology, it also provides an entire history of great minds and their discoveries to herald back to for a basis. Like choosing a medical specialist, when faced with a conundrum of Gordian proportions, it is wise to seek out those who know most about the area of understanding that puzzle falls into. Though I am tempted to take this assigned question and run with it completely on standard logic, good sense tells me it would be inadvisable. Instead, I am going to address this question to the best of my ability in all of these areas. Additionally, it may be noted that dissection and even direct reference of the actual question being answered will likely not come up until the end of this discussion. As is so often the case in Philosophical matters, there are a lot of ducks to get in a row before I can shoot them down and stuff them.