On Truth and its Components: How to Detect the Truth Clearly

(Philosocom's Directory on Honesty and Truth)

(Background music)

Truths are composed of three components: evidence, information, and logical structure. There cannot be a truth that is not evident, that does not contain data, and that is not based on logical reasoning. Even the sources of an illogical act, such as making a mistake or being incorrect, contain logical reasoning that has led to that illogical act. In other words, poor reasoning still exists and leads to logical conclusions, and that is one of the reasons the brains behind different acts, matter.

Evidence is a result of experimentation, existence, or both. There may be truths that cannot be found through experimentation, such as pure logic, which can only be experimented with through representations, rather than directly. For that matter, pure logic is one that does not incorporate empirical principles.

Still, evidence by definition is something that exists, and thus serves as reason to believe something as true or not. That evidence may be on the physical (concrete evidence) or abstract level (evidence depending on shared concepts that are widely seen as truth in the field of "the mental dimension"), and which is also dependent on other representations in order to exist.

Evidence can be either singular or plural, while each piece of evidence has different levels of relevance to the point one is attempting to prove. The same evidence could not only prove different things, but also things that are the exact opposites, ironic as it may sound. Surprisingly, there are 21 different types of evidence. The stronger the specific connection between the evidence and the point being attempted to prove, the more likely that point is true.

Everything is information. Every detail one notices or creates, regardless of the importance one relates to it, is information nonetheless. More awareness and higher sensitivity (not to be confused with sentimentality, which specifies emotions) leads to reception of more information, from sensory to intellectually. Therefore, those who receive external and internal stimulation more intensively could be naturally more intelligent than those who are more insensitive and more unaware.

Still, this intelligence does not prevent one from negative consequences, such as being more likely to feel exhausted, being more likely to be prone to stress and anxiety, (like when you're a philosopher, for example) and so forth. Nonetheless, every truth contains information, and that information could lead us to discover its logical methodology. Yet, data can be both correct and incorrect.

This is why an important trait of being wise is to be able, or at least attempt, to distinguish between the two categories of information, when receiving it. Accepting every information as true can lead to, and even strengthen, one’s ignorance of existence.

Everything has a reason and it does not have to be divine, if such option exists in the first place. Even if you get to a wrong conclusion, to a fallacy, when solving a mathematical problem, there are still factors which made you (or the opposite) to commit a fallacy in the equation; factors, which are representations of a logical structure.

Basically, everything, from truth to lie, from material to material-based idea, is a representation of a logical evolution/process. Existence after all is multi-layered. Now, just because everything has a logical origin behind it, it does not have to be perfect, i.e., to be devoid of flaws, to be one. After all, if logic exists in reality, and reality is imperfect, then logic too can be imperfect.

The problem that comes, however, is that if everything is information and everything is an origin and a representation of a logical methodology, how can one differ between truth and deception? even if there is related evidence. After all, evidence can be fabricated, and evidence alone is insufficient for it can be misused to distort our understanding. As I said, the same evidence can be related to different possibilities, which could also oppose each other; even opposing theories to one is trying to prove, also contain data and are, too, a representation/origin of a logical structure.

I can offer a possibility: A theory that has the most specific evidence, the most trustworthy information sources, and the least logical fallacies/flaws is the truest theory/assumption.

Truths can be both absolute and relative. They are relative to the object/subject at hand, and within it, specifically, they are absolute. Such “paradox” is possible by the absolute and relative being at different layers of existence: The relative is when relating to something as a part of a collection, like an ideology or a social construct; The absolute is related to something specifically, free of any collection, i.e., without regarding any collection, nor anything else, beyond the thing/being itself. In other words, as part of the world beyond the mind, independent of our thinking.

And, everything which is not the true, i.e., which does not apply to the last highlighted sentence, is a lie, a deception. In the age of misinformation it is difficult to distinguish between truth and falsehood. However, as a philosopher and head of Philosocom, I strive to understand the truth and provide you with my findings, in hope that my insights are indeed correct. It is one of the reasons I revamp many articles here and attempt to verify what I wrote with sources.

After all, you all deserve it.