Reviewing Hermeneutic. Relativity of Truth, Knowledge & Texts – Part 3

February 4, 2015

(Part 3 Based on the thoughts and theories of Ayatollah Sayed Murteza Al-Shirazi. You may also review Part 2, Part 1, and Introduction.)

By: Hussein Al-Rumaithi 

Relativity VS Relativity

Relativity can be identified relativity according to primary subjective conception, therefore, according to common factitious conception any notion and matter identified as relative is un-relative since any assertion forced upon relativity is not relative according to the third and fourth definition of relativity. The third and fourth definitions of relativity are in regard of:

  • Accuracy and appositeness, accuracy of cognitions, opposite and contradicting realities.
  • Accuracy of truth self-acknowledgement based on time, place, circumstance without correspondence and linkage.

In addition, what has been identified as relative is not relative based on common factitious conception, according to many other interpretations.  Relativity is an implemented intellectual conception, which does not accept change, even though the relativity of surrounding notions might be subjected to change. However, the external assertion if considered as existing can be presumed as “addition”, and in that case it can be considered as common conception. Nevertheless, we shall prove that “Addition” is incoherent to relativity completely.

Intellectual approach: Reality & Truth


Reality can be defined as the notion of visualizing, external existence and certainty in face of presumption, demonstration, illusions and imaginations. Therefore, it is said: This is a realistic matter as for, this is an imaginary matter. However, objective reality might be equivalent to the reality defined above, which is: all matter that exist are outside the intellectual mind of a human being, and the brain only reflects them out, if the notion of “brain reflection” is excluded.

Nevertheless, some tend to define objective reality more specific, when the claim objective reality is the materialistic world, although the notion of brain reflection might be used again regardless of nature.

According to another terminology, reality is more general than intellect’s internal and external apprehension. According to this definition, all internal intellectual activities such as illusions and imaginations are a type of reality, and have an existential reality, even though they are internal. Therefore, since these illusions and imaginations are being disclosed as information and cognition, regardless of their truth or falsehood, they can be effectual and effectuality is affiliated with existence. However, this type of existence might be less evident or non-evident compare to an external existence, but it is still considered as an EXISTENCE.

Therefore, as a general definition, reality equals existence, and ultimately, the existence of a matter is more general than visual, literal and textual existence. Intellective reality inside the brain is considered as reality, even though it might be considered as illusionary and imaginary by external measure.


Idiomatically truth can be equivalent to reality and therefore, every truth is reality and every reality is truth. This notion has been identified through an approach, which defines truth of matters is what’s inside them, like the articulate animalistic nature of humans, which is not same as labeling a human as author or humorous that makes a human identifiable without them. Avicenna’s examples and statements reveal this notion, when he stated: for every matter, there is a truth, which makes that matter what it is through it. In addition, through other interpretation that defines the same notion by a more specific approach: consistency and compatibility of a matter to its category picture and the similar nature, which was desired for.

In addition, truth can be defined as reality due to its accordance with cognition and information, which is the other front of validity. However, demonstration, sensibility and intellective picture if become considerable due to their accordance with certainty, visualizing and external factors are defined as validity, and the contrary would be truth. Therefore, truth is a reality, which I ascribed and assigned to a notion, and validity is a notion, which has been ascribed and assigned to a reality. Regardless, this definition would be more valid and feasible when considering accordance and compatibility.

Nevertheless, some have adopted the idea that truth is the apprehension that corresponds with reality. In addition, they have claimed, this definition of truth is the common belief in modern convention, which is equivalent to intellect. This notion might be the desired statement of whomever that believes, truth is in accordance with imagination and conception of reality. Nonetheless, the notion that cannot be hidden is the difference between considering the truth as accordance and compatibility and considering it accordant apprehension or the intellective imagination. In all conditions, accordance and compatibility is an attribute of apprehension due to its ascription to the apprehended. However, the admittance in both interpretations is the definition of validity, which is the other front for truth.

Therefore, in this research we have abided by the interpretation of (Reality due to its accordance with matters, apprehension, cognition and information). That is why the title: relativity of truth, intellect and language, which is more accurate was chosen. This notion would be quadruple and not bilateral.

  1. Reality according to what it is, and its own essence, and not necessary due to its exposure. Therefore, we call it reality as an absolute notion.
  2. Reality according to its exposure through one of the means of exposures or in accordance. Therefore, we call it truth and we call the opposing side would be the mirage.
  3. The matter or the intellective imaginations and information, due to their exposure from reality. Therefore, we call them validity or falsity.
  4. The matter, according to what it is and its own essence and not necessary due to its exposure. According to this notion, a matter is considered part of secondary logical rationales, which is thought to be a mental modality.

Nevertheless, Kant identified truth as an ideology that all minds agree upon during a unified timeline. Then he states that truth is nothing but that.

What is evident from Kant’s statement shows that his definition is very specific, since truth is what all minds agree upon during a unified timeline. However, truth is not confined within Kant’s definition, since for example, it is evident that globularity of earth is asserted and it is not tabular, which is a truth that is reality as well according to a previous specific definition. Therefore, it is reality due to accordance with apprehension of even a single individual in an unknown era. In addition, according to other definitions that elaborate on the notion of truth, there is no conflict with truth if majority of earth residents reject that reality. Regardless, evidencing a matter does not neglect and contradict with other notions, but limiting and confining truth by that evidence and demonstration is always questionable.

Nonetheless, our abidance by (what is agreed upon by all minds in a unified timeline is truth) is due to the notion of abidance by innateness, conscience, law and intellect, which mandates that not all minds can agree (including the messengers and prophets) on falsehood, Since this notion is the requisite of philanthropy, which is the guide path of autonomous intellective and the requisite for utter induction.

William James, founder of the pragmatist school (Expediency) says: true statement is what has the beneficial effect on what actually exist. Therefore, a statement is true since it has a valid profit, and not because it has a truthful result because it is true.

In addition, some philosophers have stated that (truth means the notion that is supported and backed by experiment). However, according to pragmatists truth is the beneficial or the successful notion, which brings profit to its possessor. What is evident from these statements is the assertiveness of their definition for truth, and the proportionality is in between them, and experiment accordance of a notion is not necessary a proof for truth.

Others have stated, truth is the notion resulting from a confrontation of senses with external matters and the interaction with them. Therefore, any result from this interaction is truth (Water is cold and hot and both states are truth).

Others have concluded that truth is the notion that a human acquires through academic path, an others have interpreted truth as the notion that mind abides to easily.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top Posts From Last Year

Recent Post