|
Okay, so conveniently I blogged about this subject on my MySpace last July. So, the following is simply just my copy/pasted blog.
There are no eternal facts, as there are no absolute truths"-Friedrich Nietzsche
This statement by the philosopher Nietzsche is false. It simply just can not be. Here is my reasoning behind it. The definition of absolute is free from imperfection, meaning that whatever is an absolute truth is infallible. Unquestionable. Eternal facts obviously mean that nothing can be a fact forever, that something will always come along and prove an accepted "fact" as erroneous. The fact that these two things, absolute truth and eternal facts, do not exist is in itself an impossibility.
If there are no eternal facts, then that statement itself is not a fact and there are in fact eternal facts. Maybe a bit of a tongue twister on that last sentence. The same would go for absolute truths. If there are no absolute truths, then obviously that statement is not a truth and there are in fact absolute truths because it is not true. So, there is only for sure one eternal fact and only one absolute truth. The possibility that there is more than one eternal fact and absolute truth is there, but it can not be proven and known for sure by anyone. Just as nobody can be sure that there is truly a God except through faith, and even then the possibility is there that God does not exist. At least in the typical organized religious sense of the meaning of God. That being said, science itself can not be wholly trusted and believed because it is in a constant state of evolution and change, new theories and "facts" replacing old ones all of the time, proving old "facts" and theories wrong or incomplete. So, the possibility of evolution in the biological definition is not an eternal fact or even an absolute truth. It is merely an accepted theory, much like Christianity or any religion with God/gods is an accepted faith. Neither is wholly sure of its own truth but the possibility is there. The same can be said of their coexistance and possible symbiotic relationship where there can be neither one without the other, the possibility is there.
I'm not sure if any of that made much sense. It makes sense in my mind but putting it into words so that others can understand it makes sense is a whole other story. It might help if I use the example of the theory of nothingness. Supposedly there are points in space where there is nothing, no matter no nothing. But this can not be true because nothing is something. It is an intangible thing but it is still a thing none the less. In a way the theory proves itself wrong by coming full circle.
|