Everyone knows the phrase “true truth.” And there is no tautology in this, because these concepts are not identical. What is their commonality and what is their difference?
Truth is objective reality. It does not depend on anyone’s opinion, it can change, but regardless of opinions, but simply with a change in this reality.
Truth is a subjective reality, born of sensations. Here it is - the product of our opinion, this is what we sacredly believe in or do not believe. It may or may not coincide with the truth. This is what they say about her: “how many people - so many opinions”, “everyone has their own truth”, etc. Everyone has their own truth, and it can also change, but not only with a change in the truth (it happens that quite the opposite, the truth has changed, but the truth is still the same), but under the pressure of new knowledge about the subject of truth, or with new sensations of the subject. Difficulty understanding philosophical terms? Let's show it with simple examples.
A husband cheating on his wife is true. Everyone around is talking about this, probably only the wife doesn’t know this, as is usually the case. She has no direct evidence of infidelity, she only has suspicions about this, so she directly asks her husband about it.
The husband assures that he loves only her alone, will never, under any circumstances, leave the family, and generally behaves as if there really are no mistresses. The wife, naturally, believes him, and her truth is that her husband does not have any mistress - her family and marriage are not in danger.
The truth of the husband is that he will never destroy his family, will not leave his wife, he himself sacredly believes in this for this period. He values his relationship with his wife, perhaps the relationship with his mistress did not touch any emotional strings in him, in the end, he realized that this relationship was a mistake and is going to break it.
There is one truth and two truths, neither of which coincides with the truth. But every truth is an opinion that everyone believes: both the deceived wife and the husband who deceived her. In this situation, there is also a third truth - the truth of the mistress, and it, most likely, will also be different from the truth. Maybe the fourth truth is the people surrounding this triangle, and so on.
A changed truth (for example, a husband stopped cheating and became a respectable family man) will not cease to be the truth, it will simply become different. The wife, confident that her husband has always been faithful to her, will never know that the truth has changed; she will still have her own truth - the truth about her faithful husband. Well, then everything is clear.
Let's assume that the husband continues to cheat on his wife, and the relationship with his mistress has become more important for him than the relationship with his wife. He is no longer afraid of losing her, which he informs her about, without fear of hurting her feelings. Both his truth and his wife’s truth have changed, especially since it is already supported not only by the husband’s words, but also by evidence of betrayal - for example, the husband shows her a photo of his mistress, or she herself saw the two of them together.
The main thing in this example is do not try to impose your truth on another person, even if you firmly believe in it, it can also be different from the truth! Give other people the opportunity to have their own opinions! All people are different, and they do not necessarily have to be similar to each other. It is in their differences that people’s interest in each other lies, because everything unknown and unknown is always interesting, and a book read from cover to cover is closed without regret if everything written in it has long been clear and no longer arouses interest!
The truth is that everyone has their own life and problems. Most people try to be good workers, parents, spouses, friends and ultimately good people. But it's not that simple. Everyone wants to live the way they want and how, in their opinion, it should be done correctly. “Everyone has their own truth, but there is only one truth” - what could this expression mean?
Everyone has their own truth
The earth is currently consumed by religious disputes, geographical differences, unrest and so on. Compassion and understanding are what is sometimes so lacking. It is so easy to become absorbed in one's own point of view and self-righteousness that it can lead to a complete misunderstanding of one's neighbor. Everyone sees this world through their own unique lens, and another life will look strange, to say the least. Everyone has their own truth. And don't forget about it.
Every person has their own unique set of views. One person's beliefs may be different from another's, but that does not make them any less valid. Everyone has their own world and certain truths. You may not understand someone's actions, but this is understandable; someone just sees the world from a completely different point of view. One sees black, the other sees white. The truth can be distorted if viewed from different angles.
How to understand someone else's reality?
If a person cannot truly understand someone else's reality, then what right does he have to be so complacent as to judge someone else's situation? It just doesn't work. Everyone has their own truth, their own truths. Humans are full of idiosyncrasies of all kinds, including genetics, moods, prejudices, cultural teachings, and thoughts that influence morality and logic.
What makes sense to one will have no meaning to another. And that's okay. You can't hate a person because he's just not like you. Spiritually and intellectually this happens every day. People react to basic emotions and may not like other people who, for example, upset them. Maybe they hurt others because they are hated? Everyone has their own truth.
Different levels of truth
Of course, the so-called subjective truth is present in people's minds. There is an objective reality - a physical world that exists independently of the observer. IN physical world there are facts that do not depend on our faith. In the same way, there is a certain spiritual reality. There is truth and divinity. Everyone has their own truth. But there is only one truth, and it is absolute. And there are what are called “spiritual things” that reasonable people can easily agree on.
Very often people say that everyone has their own truth... They are both right and fundamentally mistaken at the same time when they say so. The truth is always one, and here it is important that a person can try to see all possible facets of this truth. And the more, the better. This must be done before premature conclusions are made, and even more so before anyone is condemned.
Unfortunately, most people are not able to understand this, and even if they do understand, they are simply unable to consider these other facets, since they cannot cope with their grievances and emotions.
Different people - different truth
Everyone has their own truth, their own life, their own plans: an official, a policeman, an employee, a teacher, as well as a child and an adult, a man and a woman. Why such differences?
Much depends on desires, preferences and interests, most of which are opposed to each other.
For example, an official wants peace and money, and an employee wants social justice. The police officer wants to catch, but the thief wants to avoid getting caught. The baby wants to play, but the adult is tired after work and wants to get some sleep. The basis for such truth is self-interest. And here an elementary substitution of concepts occurs.
"Truth is like a lion. You don't need to protect it. Set it free. It will defend itself."
The above quote is attributed to St. Augustine. Many people disagree with him because they believe that the lion in this metaphor is vulnerable and we need to fight to protect it. Ethical truths are highly subjective and therefore controversial. You cannot take a life - this is the truth. But what about honor killings then? Those who commit them behave incorrectly in accordance with ethical truth, but they are right in their own way, since for them bringing dishonor to the family is a more serious crime than murder.
Many ethical controversies exist around abortion, euthanasia and death penalty. If ethical truths could defend themselves, would they not convince us of all their merits? If you look at it from this point of view, then defenders of their truth must defend their opinion. These activists are not only able to convince that they are right, but also influence big number like-minded people.
St. Augustine probably had in mind the biblical truth that he believed in - that the truth of his god would prevail even without his protection. It is clear that on this moment this has not happened in human history, given wide circle beliefs and shortcomings that the people of our planet possess. St. Augustine's truth is ethical and logical, and maybe it can defend itself, but there will still be those who disagree with it.
Every joke has some truth (truth)
This expression is quite common; many have heard it more than once. But there is similar expression, which sounds like: What could this mean?
Despite the fact that the second option is a remake, both phrases are already considered quite hackneyed. It is likely that the meaning of the expression is that any joke is an embellished or veiled truth. Although sometimes you shouldn’t look for simple things secret meaning, sometimes a banana is just a banana.
Truth and Truth are the deepest concepts of Russian culture (Stepanov 2004: 455–471; Chernikov 2002), the analysis of the relationship of which is a cultural and philosophical task. It is advisable to begin its discussion at the level of etymology.
For the word Truth the basis is the root prav-, Old Russian right- “straight”, “correct”. Right indicates preferred orientation, as opposed to crooked. This may be due to both spatial ( rights- vs. a lion-), both in the legal and moral spheres. In the latter cases right takes on the meaning: “acting (acting) correctly, properly”, “innocent”, “honest”, “fair”, “acting according to conscience”. In fact right means “serving as a norm or indicating a norm to follow” (Ivanov, Toporov 1978: 228; Vasmer 1971: 372). Respectively, Truth acts as general concept to express a norm, both in terms of what is accepted as a norm, and in terms of execution, implementation of the norm ( set the truth). That's why Truth originally had meanings such as “vow, promise” ( gave strong truth), "oath" ( gave the truth to the whole earth), "command, commandment" ( I won’t forget your truths), “set of rules, laws”, “contract”, “rights” ( you, sir, tell your truth, and they tell theirs) (Sreznevsky 1989; Art. 1335–1360).
The etymology of the word is less obvious true. Researchers late XIX– the beginning of the 20th century tend to bring this word and verb closer together There is: "Everything, that There is, That true; isn't it the same thing There is And truth, truth? (Dahl 1955: 60). Modern researchers erect the word true to other Russian, Old-Sl. ist, acting as an adjective with the meanings “genuine, real, valid”, “accurate”, and as a pronoun in the meaning “that one”. The main disputes begin later, they are associated with the reconstruction of the Indo-European basis of the ist(Toporov 1958: 80; Vasmer 1967: 144). We can omit philological details, especially since all approaches have an invariant core - an understanding of truth through connection with a certain, stable (ie *st) order (natural or legal). The original stable order is the source of truth, the basis of truth, the original truth; participation, compliance with this original, stable order defines truth as similarity, accuracy, defines truth as a property that marks possible contenders in terms of quality and degree of compliance with the original order, the original charter.
Thus, already at the level of etymology it is revealed that Truth And true carry within themselves typologically different kinds knowledge. Is it true gravitates towards knowledge of the normative plan, which sets a certain model of action, a certain strategy of obligation. True focuses on knowledge of the descriptive plan, in which a certain model of the current state of affairs, a model of existence, is determined. Is it true points to due, true- on existence. Accordingly, the question of the relationship truth And truth– this is a question of the relationship between what should and what exists.
The deepest ideological problem - the relationship between what should and what is, which any developed cultural system is forced to solve and solves in one way or another, is conceptualized within the Russian ideological matrix as a problem of relationship truth And truth where is the concept Truth is used to express the highest, most significant due, and the concept true– for the representation of fundamentally existing things. In these implications, both concepts acquire the deepest philosophical meaning and actually begin to play the role of general cultural philosophemes, Truth and Truth, respectively.
Consideration of conceptual collisions in the space of relationships between Truth and Truth requires a deep historical, cultural and philosophical analysis. The Russian worldview matrix is formed through the consistent assimilation of the fundamental ideological paradigms of Western European civilization: pagan, Christian and new European (secular). Each of them receives its reception as part of Russian culture and sets its own semantic implications of a worldview, including in the field of the relationship between the highest ought and the truly existing, i.e. in the field of the relationship between Truth and Truth.
Pagan worldview paradigm and its reception in Russian culture
A characteristic feature of the pagan worldview paradigm is the distinction between two types of time, more precisely (taking into account the syncretism of pagan consciousness), two types of time-states: sacred and profane. Sacred time-state is the situation of the initial ordering of the world, the establishment of the fundamental structures of being at the cosmogonic, natural and social levels. In this era, through the actions of gods and cultural heroes, key archetypes and normative institutions for all spheres of human life are laid.
Profane time-state is the situation of the current present, everyday, everyday existence. The structure of typical human behavioral forms in the profane time-state is set by the original archetypes, originating in the period of the sacred time-state. The fundamental normative order of sacred origin serves as a constantly operating ideological background for a person of pagan culture. Following the original archetypes is perceived by him as a guarantee of vitality and stability human existence.
It should be taken into account that a society of pagan orientation is at the stage of pre-reflective traditionalism (S.S. Averintsev). The very organization of the worldview model in a society of this type makes reflexive procedures extremely difficult. The worldview model here functions as a holistic picture of the world, in which the initial system of meanings and meanings that organize order human existence, turns out to be projected onto the entire natural and cultural environment of man. Natural phenomena, elements of the landscape, parts of the home, utensils, food, clothing, etc. have a symbolic character and encode in a variety of ways the regulations accepted as normative. Mastering such a picture of the world requires not understanding, but memorization. Not the derivation of meanings, not a deductive procedure, but recognition, identification of a certain precedent and application to it of the corresponding “recipe” prescribed in the culture constitutes characteristic style functioning of the pagan worldview. This situation is well illustrated by the nature of archaic forms of riddles, the answers to which are not derived from the meaning of the riddle - you just need to know them.
With such an organization of the world model, what is and what should be are actually “welded.” The initially established, archetypal order is both truly existing and normatively due. Actions according to the established order are correct, fair. On the contrary, actions that do not coincide with archetypally established ones need to be corrected, fixed. This is how the lost order is reproduced and the original state of affairs is restored.
This worldview model is also characteristic of Russian pagan culture. The presumption of the existence of an initially established normative order permeates the life and worldview of the ancient Slavs. This initial order (Truth), giving rise to custom, indicating the correctness of actions, is at the same time Truth. It is characteristic that the Truth is reflected not so much in a positive as in a negative way. In traditional culture, “what is motivated (and thereby realized) is not the norm, but deviations from the norm... What is already given, is, exists, does not need explanations or comments. But the violations are heavily commented on” (Bayburin 1993: 15).
Both traditional custom and common law function in a similar way. Mostly violations of customary law and measures that are believed to be able to compensate for the violation and restore the original balance are explicated. This is exactly the approach used in ancient written monuments rights - the so-called barbaric Pravakh, where a standard article is organized according to the form: “If (in case)<экспликация действия-нарушения>, That<экспликация компенсирующей меры>" For example, in Russian Pravda: “If the eye grows dark, then 20 hryvnia”; “Even if you set fire to the yard, you’re going to go out and plunder.”
The structure of “barbaric” Truths goes back to the most ancient forms of normative institutions of tribal society, the so-called tribal Pravda - the oral laws of a tribe or union of tribes. Tribal Truth, preserved by special people - legislators, judges or priests, ensured the legal regulation of relations in a large tribe or union of tribes with mandatory sanction guaranteed by the power of the tribal people's assembly, which, being highest level tribal management, also had judicial functions. During the trial, the people's assembly was guided by generally accepted norms that determined punishment depending on the nature of the violation, while the assembly made a decision - the “truth” in accordance with custom (Sverdlov 1988: 46).
Thus, at the most ancient stage of the Slavic worldview, the syncretic unity of Truth and Truth can be traced with their extremely weak cultural explication. Deviations from the pre-given order (Truth-Truth) that require correction are mainly marked. “Correcting” is provided traditional forms social regulation, the extreme expression of which is the tribal court, guided by customary law. The court gives specific instructions, private truths designed to restore the balance lost during an unlawful act and compensate for the violation of the original social order.
Christian worldview paradigm and its reception in Russian culture
The key constant of the Judeo-Christian picture of the world is the idea of a transcendent God, a single God the Creator, God the Almighty. If pagan gods included in the natural world order, subject to fundamental natural necessity, then the biblical God is an extra-natural principle. He is not constrained by any necessity; everything is subject to His will. He lays down the law to the natural world, He establishes the order of the world order. Everything that exists has its being from God, who alone is truly existing (Ex. 3:14).
The interpretation of man in the biblical conceptual tradition differs significantly from the pagan worldview. If in last person acts as an element of the natural order, a link in the chain of natural necessity, then in the biblical system of thought man, being created in the image and likeness of God, is fundamentally different from all created things, he is torn out from the sphere of purely natural determination and is directly subordinate to God. The law of human existence can no longer be derived from nature; it is determined by the Divine principle. At the same time, which is very significant, God, acting as a personal Absolute (Jeremiah 10:10), directly addresses man. It is not given to man to see God (1 Tim. 6:16), but it is given to hear the voice of God (Rom. 10:17).
In the biblical worldview paradigm, the understanding of what is and what should be takes on a specific coloring. The area of the sacred is extremely personified and associated with a single absolute personal principle - God. Biblical monotheism is sharply opposed to the tolerance of pagan polytheism. Within the framework of the latter, every people, every locality has its own divine patrons, who are all true because they are inscribed in the pre-given world order. The Bible insists on the only true God, dismissing all other gods as false, imaginary, inauthentic. This implies the utmost importance of the question of Truth.
In the biblical worldview paradigm, God is simultaneously both the existing (uncreated) and the establisher of the existing (created). God is both Truth himself (Jeremiah 10:10), and the establisher of Truth as a truly existing world, the general created order. The concept of the highest Truth is directly associated with God. God not only establishes the world order (the Truth of created things), but also gives man laws, prescribes the norms of his behavior, i.e., shows man the Truth. Therefore, the one who builds his life in accordance with the commandments of God is called righteous a person, and his life is considered righteous.
At the same time, a person is by no means determined in his following the path of Truth. The most important element of the biblical worldview paradigm is the provision of human freedom. Having created man in his own image and likeness, God endowed him with free will, the freedom to choose his life path. That is why a person can prescribe his own the truth, which does not coincide with God-given The truth. Then human Truth will not be true, and the life of such a person - righteous.
This is how multifaceted semantic collisions are constituted. Man is directly included in the world, natural order established by God, which represents the Truth of created existence. Man is dependent on this Truth and cannot ignore its structure in the conditions of his earthly existence. However, it is not the Truth of created beings that is determined Truth man (created by God as a master over the natural world, man does not derive his truth from the knowledge of the Truth of existence, but autonomously forms his the truth, often even contrary to what natural necessity dictates). As one must assume, Truth man ascends to the Truth of uncreated existence, that is, to the Truth of God, who shows man the true Truth. But, having autonomy of will, a person in his truth can deviate from the divine Truth, lose the true Truth.
If we take into account another fundamental element of the biblical worldview paradigm - the plot of Satan - then the picture of human obligation becomes even more complicated.
Yes, a person himself forms the maxim of his duty (his the truth), but by no means out of nowhere. He lives in the natural world, but “walks under God” and is tempted by Satan. Accordingly, a person comes into contact with three fundamental realities: the reality of the natural world (the Truth of created beings), the reality of God (the Truth of uncreated beings), the reality of Satan (the Truth of the existence of evil). Each of these types of Truth implies its own Truth: the natural order imposes its own type of obligation on a person, God indicates another, Satan pushes a third. But the final sanction is given by the person himself, who can make both worthy and unworthy choices.
In addition, one should take into account the different nature of the representation of the three types of Truth and the three types of Truth for a person. The relationship between man and the natural world is a system of relationships “I – It” (M. Buber). The truth of the natural world is known through sensory and experimental means, and the corresponding type of obligation is produced on the basis of the rational development of the experimental basis. “The truths of nature,” as M.V. Lomonosov called natural laws, are not found in the human soul by themselves; special efforts of the mind are required to comprehend and master them.
God and Satan, on the contrary, are revealed as an internally found voice, as a corresponding spiritual orientation. Man, in relation to both God and Satan, is in the system of oppositions “I – You” (M. Buber). At the same time, the order of organization “You” ( true“You”) fades into the background, in the foreground is the direct voice “You”, carrying the truth"You". In the “I – You” system, compared to the “I – It” system, it is not the structure that is important truth, only the truth marker is decisive. Here it is important not to make a mistake, not to mistake an illusory, imaginary (false) voice for the voice of the genuine (true) “You”. From this perspective, a person’s relationship with more powerful principles is usually revealed - God and Satan. According to the biblical system of thought, Satan is the monkey of God, he constantly strives to pass himself off as God, thus being a false god. If the true God brings goodness and love, then Satan brings evil and hatred. If the Truth of God is the true Truth, then the “Truth” of Satan is anti-Truth, false and false truth. False - because it significantly distorts the true Truth; false - because this distortion is made intentionally, as a result of special malicious intent.
One of the most difficult practical tasks for a person is to distinguish between true and false Truths. The True Truth is the effective, saving Truth. It is strong because it comes from God and is based on the power of God, the Truth of God. The truth of God is the true reality of God, His solidity, His power, His indestructibility, His permanence. In this sense, Satan does not possess the Truth. Satan is pseudo-reality, pseudo-solidity, pseudo-indestructibility, pseudo-enduringness. The word of Satan, the “Truth” of Satan is an ineffective Truth, leading into the realm of imaginary and unsupported, leading not to salvation, but to the complete destruction of a person.
Therefore, within the framework of such a worldview, the acquisition of the authentic word of God becomes so important, true Truth. The Word of God, carried into the world by intermediaries between God and man - the prophets, is carefully recorded and constitutes the content of a special inspired body of texts - the Bible. However, when embodied in human writing, the Word of God loses its spontaneity and, as it were, “frozen” in the form of a universal normative code. Hence the inevitability of interpretation in relation to specific cases and the risk of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Accumulating, erroneous interpretations gradually cover the Divine Word like a cobweb, which weakens its effectiveness and actually discredits it. Therefore, the possibility of additional Revelation of God, updating the true Word and endowing it with new meanings, is quite legitimate. This is precisely the state of affairs accepted by Christianity. God's first Revelation, identified as the Old Testament, is supplemented by His second Revelation, incarnate in Jesus Christ.
Christ, the Son of God, is the Word of God made flesh. Christ brings people New World, a new word of Truth. The power of Christ is the power of God, the inviolability of the word of Christ is ensured by the Truth of God, therefore Christ himself “is the way and the truth and the life” (John 14:6). Christians find the light of Truth, the Truth of God through Jesus Christ. “In him the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” (Rom. 1:17), therefore the gospel of Christ “is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes” (Rom. 1:16).
Russian culture, when accepting Christianity, was hardly aware of all the deep implications of the biblical worldview paradigm. For a long time the actual theological, worldview aspect of biblical revelation was not subject to proper reflection. The Christian worldview paradigm took root in Russian culture in an everyday, spontaneous way. Just as the Church Slavonic language was mastered in Rus' not from textbooks, but through memorizing the Psalter and Book of Hours, so the Christian worldview was perceived without special analysis, as a result of church worship and corresponding practical activities.
Nevertheless, the Christianization of Rus' did its job. Through assimilation Christian teaching Russian culture for the first time received an explicitly expressed and systematically organized worldview, and also acquired the necessary categorical apparatus for conveying the most complex conceptual constructs.
In line with this process, ancient Slavic words also acquired a categorical, ideological character true And true. True is put in correspondence with the Greek concept dikayosyune, A true acts as an analogue of the Greek term aletheia. AND aletheia, And dikayosyune– deeply developed ideological categories.
Ancient Greek aletheia, a-Letheia - “that which is not washed away by the waters of Lethe”, originally: “that which is not subject to oblivion, that which appears in eternity, does not pass away, but remains” (Reale, Antiseri 1994: 284). Characteristic is the connection between the concept aletheia with the practice of prediction and prophecy. Prediction, being aletheia, comes true because it is based on true reality, as opposed to the imaginary one. That is why we must take into account aletheia. This semantic component directly connects this concept with the religious sphere. The prophecies of a religious system come true - that means this religion is true; and vice versa, if a religion is true, then its prophecies, its recommendations are true, reliable, and thorough. It is no coincidence in a word aletheia was the name of the sapphire jewelry, which was worn by the high priests in Egypt as a symbol of the truth of their teachings (Dvoretsky 1958: 78).
Concept dikayosyune V ancient culture has a different semantic definition. Initially, its meaning is associated with the legal process, and its main themes are: 1) justice, legality, righteousness; 2) justice, legal proceedings; 3) beneficence (Butler 1958: 406).
In the Christian worldview paradigm, all the main administrations of law in general and judgment in particular are associated with God (“He has prepared His throne for judgment, and He will judge the world in righteousness, He will execute judgment on the nations in righteousness” [Ps. 9:8–9] ) and His messenger on earth Jesus Christ, who “is the appointed Judge of the living and the dead” (Acts 10:42). The entire range of normative functions - specifying the law, granting rights, making sentences, awarding retribution - is concentrated in the highest, divine principle. To convey these meanings, the variety of legal implications already established in the ancient Greek language is used dikayosyune.
Thus, putting in correspondence with the Greek aletheia And dikayosyune Slavic words true And true, the Christian Russian tradition, willy-nilly, introduces into the latter the semantic load that their Greek counterparts carry.
True following the Greek aletheia actively uses such semes as “authenticity”, “reality”, “actually existing order of things”. They are joined by connotative semes - “uniqueness” (the true order of things, the true God, the true religion exist in the singular), “immutability, eternity, indestructibility” (the true existential order is imperishable, only the earthly, vain, imaginary is changeable), “power, power, strength, power" (a consequence of the indestructibility, fundamental nature of truth, which determines the desire to use truth as a support for any constructions - both mental and directly practical). Is it true, correlating with Greek wild And dikayosyune, combines semes of the highest normative order: “law, legality”, “correctness, rightness, justice”, “the right to a sufficient basis for action”, “law as a system, a set of codes (formular law)”.
It is significant that the semantic sphere of concepts true And true is by no means synonymous. A prominent expert in the field of Old Church Slavonic, R. M. Tseitlin, notes: “Usually the Old Slavic language. true And true are interpreted as synonyms. Meanwhile, in Old Church Slavonic true first of all, it meant “what actually happened, in reality”, true“correctness, fairness (in judgment, decision)”; the same semantic differences characterize the stem words of the same root. words" (Tseitlin 1977: 24). Is it true implies "what should be done" true- “that which truly exists.” But in traditional society the first is not derived from the second. “What should be done” is of a prescription nature, and therefore finding the truth and applying it in no way presupposes a procedure of deduction starting from a certain understanding of the truth (no matter how paradoxical this may seem from the point of view modern image thoughts). And only the adoption of the Christian worldview paradigm changes this state of affairs.
The monotheistic God “contracts” and absorbs into himself all the fundamental worldview meanings. He Himself is the Truth, He is also the Creator of earthly Truth, the Establisher of the fundamental order of things. At the same time, He is the Supreme Lawgiver and Judge, bringing Truth to people and judging by Truth. Thus, the problem of searching for Truth and the problem of searching for Truth turn out to be unidirectional. Establishing the Truth is the knowledge of the true God, but at the same time it is also the acceptance of the commandments of God, that is, the acquisition of Truth. And vice versa, untruth, falsehood is nothing more than the result of the loss of Truth, the true God, the result of worship of an untrue God.
Sacred secularization of Rus'. Losses and searches for Truth
By the middle of the 16th century, medieval Rus' achieved unprecedented prosperity and power. Such a power needs appropriate ideological support. And it is found in the concept of the Third Rome. Muscovite Rus' takes upon itself the obligation to be a true stronghold of Orthodoxy, to stand in its truth and bring it to the whole world the truth. In essence, a theocratic state is being created, the highest authority of which - the Tsar - is endowed with virtually unlimited powers under the guise of the ideology of strengthening and protecting the true faith.
Until the reign of Peter the Great, theocratic ideology reigned unshakably. It was based on the corresponding reception of the Christian worldview paradigm. Truth here is associated with the true God, the true - Orthodox - faith and the true - God-given - King. Truth is nothing more than the Word of Truth, which carries the categorical imperative of life behavior, defining the meaning and purpose of human existence. Moreover, righteousness, that is, living in truth, does not in any way imply intellectual reflection, much less criticism of the highest commandments, which take the form of royal decrees. Righteousness in Russian culture is focused on the behavioral model of “self-surrender” (Lotman 1996: 27–38), based on the presumption of unconditional, selfless trust in the inevitably sacralized Authority.
Using the terminology of M. Weber, we can say that the Russian person does not have an “ethic of responsibility”, but an “ethic of conviction.” If for the ethics of responsibility the starting point is to take into account the current state of affairs, the strategy of behavior (proper) is deductively derived from the analysis of existence: “Do what follows from your position in this world,” then for the ethics of conviction the starting point is the imperative of action, the individual is only required follow this imperative, regardless of the circumstances: “Do what you have to do, and don’t worry about the rest.” The corresponding “concern” is the prerogative of the very source of norms, while the individual’s concern lies in the ability to “suffer” for a just cause. Hence the high importance of the concept of “service” or, more precisely, “service”. In a theocratic state, everyone is essentially a servant. Everyone serves the Truth as the true God, and the king is the first servant of God. But that is precisely why everyone is subordinate to the God-given Sovereign, whose word is the highest Truth.
With this system of thought, the loss of Truth turns out to be directly related to the loss of Truth, and this happens when the supreme power is seized - by deception or force - by an untrue servant of God. The Antichrist in power is the most terrible danger that seems to the bearers of Russian theocratic culture. The alarm bell of this danger began to sound in full force, perhaps, in the most unfavorable for Rus', the “rebellious” 17th century.
It was in the 17th century that the theme of “correction” arose, the need for which was directly associated with the loss of Truth. “People of the 17th century,” writes V.N. Toporov (1996: 370), “who saw, experienced, experienced so much, were witnesses to the fact that here Falsehood has come together with Truth, and are deeply hurt by the fact that:
But the Krivda offended the Truth:
True, she went to the highest heavens,
and Krivda remained on the damp ground,
throughout the entire Orthodox people.
It fell on all of our zealous hearts:
That is why there is no truth in our world,
lawlessness has become great.
Pigeon Book
The very recognition of the fact of trampling on the Truth, of separation from it, was, it seems, more terrible than all the hardships of life, which were the result of the fact that But the Krivda has offended the Truth».
The truth of theocratic absolutism did not withstand the tests that befell Rus' since the murder of the true heir to the Moscow theocratic throne - Tsarevich Dmitry. The new Truth (inevitably perceived by traditional consciousness as Falsehood) had to triumph. It becomes “The Truth of the Monarch’s Will” (that was the name of the treatise written by the main ideologist of Peter’s reforms, Feofan Prokopovich). This was already the philosophy of secular absolutism.
The worldview models of secular and theocratic absolutism, with all their fundamental opposition, demonstrate deep unity: the highest Truth correlates with the supreme power embodied in the personality of the monarch, the monarch acts as a servant and representative of the highest Truth, and therefore indicates the Truth, which must be accepted on the basis of selfless trust and unquestioning obedience . In both cases, the monarch is sacralized and, acting as the supreme world organizer of the true order, demands that a person “surrender himself” and accept a certain religion.
If the Russian theocracy professed an extra-mundane Orthodox religion, then Peter I actually created a secular religion of statehood. If in a theocratic state the ultimate goal is to bring the Christian people into the Kingdom of God, then the goal of a secular state is to organize the lives of people on earth. The truth of the Russian theocracy is the Orthodox God, the Truth of Peter is the State and the Fatherland, therefore, if the theocratic tsar is the servant of God, then the Russian emperor is the servant of the Fatherland and in this sense the servant of the people.
In its formulation, the ideology of Peter's absolutism was faced with the need to solve a double problem. On the one hand, as a guarantee of successful adaptation of the new ideological system, it was necessary to preserve the traditional archetype of divinely established power. On the other hand, the ideology of a secular state should be based on completely worldly, earthly goals, as a rule, from the goals of “common benefit” or “national good.” This non-trivial problem was masterfully solved by Feofan Prokopovich. If Western European theorists built the concept of supreme power on the basis of either divine institution or a social contract between the people and the monarch, then Theophanes combined these two sources. According to Theophanes, divine establishment does not occur through the supernatural, but naturally through the people's will, guided by God's providence.
This is how a rather paradoxical concept was formed, which played an impressive role in the destinies of Russia. Its essence can be stated as follows: the supreme sovereign is the people, it is their good that constitutes the ultimate goal and meaning of the state’s activities. But the path leading to the people's good is not directly recognized by the people and cannot be traversed by them independently. What is needed is a tribune of the people, a true guardian of the people's welfare, who has special abilities(endowed with divine grace and/or illuminated by the light of Truth) and, because of this, is entitled to give the people the Truth, i.e., show the path leading to people's happiness. Such a tribune - be it a monarch, as in the case of Peter, or, for example, a party, as in the case of the Bolsheviks - acts as a sacred source of the highest Truth, a source of duty, which takes responsibility for the final success of the people's cause. The people themselves, having relieved themselves of this responsibility, can only follow the supreme instructions, no matter how paradoxical they may look from the point of view of the current moment.
This concept constitutes the fundamental motive of Russian sacred secularization. The people's tribunes change, the Truths they proclaim change, but the original archetype remains constant - the need to find the true Shepherd and entrust your destiny to Him, trusting that He will not deceive, will not let you down, He will be able to.
The post-Petrine history of Russia demonstrates a whole range of possible implementations of the Russian archetype of sacred secularization. First of all, this is, of course, the concept of monarchical power, ensuring the welfare of the people. Here, the dignity of the king does not depend on the fulfillment of canonical rules (for example, the rules of succession to the throne), but - solely - on the public benefit brought by him as a result of his reign. Accordingly, if monarchy turns into tyranny, if the interests of the people are supplanted by the private interests of the sovereign, then the idea of eliminating the usurper becomes justified.
Another powerful concept is that of constitutional government as truly guaranteeing the people's benefit. A striking example This approach is the ideology of the Decembrists. And the Truth is proclaimed again. Now the new “Russian Truth” is the name of P. I. Pestel’s program document. Necessity new Truth was dictated by the conviction of the Decembrists that the form of government adopted in Russia - an absolute monarchy - was not able to really ensure the people's welfare. Absolutism inevitably degenerates into willful and selfish “evil power”, and therefore it must be replaced by a constitutional system. At the core public order there must be not the will of the monarch, but the Truth of the Law, which is impartial, incorruptible, and therefore not “evil-powerful.” The implementation of this task became the main political goal of the Decembrists, who paved the way for the Russian revolutionary movement.
Discrediting the idea of an autocratic king—God’s anointed—raises with particular force the question of the Truth that brings Truth to people. God's truth must give way, but to whom? Options are possible here, up to the complete abolition of the single meaning-forming Truth. However, such “exoticism” is not typical for the Russian worldview. A holy place is never empty - sacred Truth is found.
But (what a paradox!), as such a Truth, the progressive Russian worldview, which felt reverence (sometimes excessive) for the West with its material successes, its sciences, its freedoms, accepts nothing other than the Truth of created existence, i.e. the truth of the natural world . Its plenipotentiary is Reason. It is he who must indicate the correct line of behavior; it is on the basis of comprehension of the objective laws of nature and society that the Truth should be built.
The Enlightenment paradigm began to influence Russian mentality already in the 18th century, but its real heyday in Russia occurred in the 19th century, and it was adopted by political and social movements opposed to the autocracy. Such is Russian Marxism. The truth, his supporters believe, has already been discovered in the West and embodied in the truly scientific teachings of Marx. To master this Truth means to understand the Truth, to understand where the objective laws of social development lead, how to act in order to move in their wake and enlist their support. People's happiness must be built on a solid foundation of scientific Truth.
To be fair, it must be said that the Marxist and, more broadly, educational-scientific orientation has always found its opponents in Russia. While there was solidarity at the level of the goal—the public good—there was no unity at the level of understanding the path leading to this goal. Rigidity, soullessness, rigorism of scientific truth, which prescribes an indisputable law social development and thereby breaking the destinies of people, caused an emotional protest against this state of affairs. This is V. Belinsky, who refuses a “ticket” to a bright future, subject to the need to sacrifice generations who had the fate of being born in a cruel and unfair present. This is F. Dostoevsky, who does not want happiness if at least one “child’s tear” is shed on the way to it. These are religious thinkers who modernize Christianity in relation to new social tasks - Vl. Soloviev, P. Florensky, S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev. All of them do not see the Truth in scientific truth and are trying to build alternative concepts of ought to the scientific and educational paradigm. But, we must admit, the effectiveness of these concepts leaves much to be desired.
The truth of the Bolsheviks, having prevailed in 1917, walked with a harsh tread across Russia. Today it seems that it is not the Truth, at least not the complete Truth. But why did this happen? Either scientific truth itself failed, or the interpretation of scientific truth turned out to be incorrect, or... Or maybe the Russian approach to the sacralization of Truth, “submitting oneself” to its highest authority, and reckless adherence to its Truth are to blame? There's a lot to think about here.
Literature
Bayburin, A. K. 1993. Ritual in traditional culture. SPb.: Science.
Dahl, Vl. 1955. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. T. 2. M.: Gosinizdat.
Dvoretsky, I. Kh. 1958. Ancient Greek-Russian dictionary. T. 1. M.: Gosinizdat.
Ivanov, V.V., Toporov, V.N. 1978. About the language of ancient Slavic law. Slavic linguistics. VIII International Congress of Slavists... Reports of the Soviet delegation. M.: Science, p. 221–240.
Lotman, Yu. M. 1996. Two concepts of the origin of power in Ancient Rus'(contract and reward). From the history of Russian culture. T. 4. XVIII – early XIX centuries. M.: Languages of Russian culture, p. 27–39.
Reale, J., Antiseri, D. 1994. Western philosophy from its origins to the present day. T. 1. Antiquity. SPb.: Petropolis.
Sverdlov, M. B. 1988. From Russian Law to Russian Truth. M.: Legal literature.
Sreznevsky, I. I. 1989. Dictionary of the Old Russian language. T. 2. Part 2. M.: Book.
Stepanov, Yu. S. 2004. Constants. Dictionary of Russian culture. M.: Academic project.
Toporov, V. N.
1958. Etymological notes (Slavic-Italic parallels). Brief messages Institute of Slavic Studies of the USSR Academy of Sciences 25: 74–87.
1996. Moscow people of the 17th century (to the topic of the day). From the history of Russian culture. T. 3. XVII – beginning of XVIII century. M.: Languages of Russian culture, p. 346–379.
Vasmer, M.
1967. T. 2. M.: Progress.
1971. Etymological dictionary Russian language. T. 3. M.: Progress.
Tseytlin, R. M. 1977. Vocabulary of the Old Church Slavonic language. M.: Science.
Chernikov, M. V. 2002. Philosophy of Truth in Russian culture. Voronezh: VSU.
Determining what is truth and what is truth, and the question of how they differ from each other, are very interesting to inquisitive native speakers of the Russian language: even on the Internet on forums you can find very lively discussions on this score. Moreover, the answers are the most unexpected and even contradictory, from “there is no difference” to “these are completely incomparable categories.” Let's try to find out why truth and truth arouse such interest among people of all ages and what lies the mystery of their different interpretations.
Definition
Is it true– information claiming to be reliable; antonym of the word lie.
True- the only correct information that absolutely accurately reflects the real state of affairs.
Comparison
In modern Russian, these concepts have the following basic meanings. Truth is knowledge of a specific, factual episode of reality. This knowledge can be and, most likely, is incomplete, since in this case only a certain fragment is revealed to a person, and not the whole. Truth is high, intimate knowledge associated with the spiritual, intellectual sphere. The truth is close to the universal, divine laws of existence. Truth is a more mundane, everyday concept, truth is sublime, all-encompassing. Truth is subjective, but truth is objective. There is only one truth, but truth is only a particular person’s point of view on any event or fact. You can try to challenge any truth, but truth cannot be doubted, since it is absolute. Truth is super valuable and does not require proof.
It is interesting that this division, which is today perceived by Russian speakers as true (pardon the involuntary pun!), was of the exact opposite nature until the 19th century. That is, before, truth was conceptualized as human, and truth as divine. Truth was an indispensable attribute of God and the saints. Word Truth in the language of Ancient Rus' it was closely connected with the concepts of justice, righteousness, and piety. Let us remember the ancient legal code “Russian Truth” - it was not for nothing that it had that name. Is it true at that time it was the result of communication between God and man. But truth was then perceived as something more mundane: according to the Psalter, it rose “from the earth,” was a gift of the human mind, while truth came “from heaven.” In some of its meanings, truth was even semantically related to the concepts product And money. But by the 20th century, truth and truth had changed places: truth “raised” and truth “declined.”
Conclusions website
- In the modern Russian language, truth is a kind of fragmentary, subjective information that claims to be reliable, but does not necessarily bear it. Truth is absolute, undeniable knowledge associated with the spiritual sphere.
- Truth is a mundane concept, truth is sublime.
- Truth is subjective, but truth is objective.
- There is only one truth, but everyone can have their own truth.
- Until the 20th century, the interpretation of the concepts of truth and truth was exactly the opposite: truth was a purely human, and truth was a divine principle.
