Simply, there will be always different opinions of people about everything and depending on the time and the place you are it will be the kind of truth you are going to obtain. Let’s get an example of religion vs.
physics. If we get as an example the creation of man, religion and the science of physics will say a completely different statement. From religion we will obtain that got create man, starting with a man and a woman and starting from that point, humanity get created; and from a scientific view, man was evolving from the most primitive creature until it got what we are.The context is the same, but the focus of the idea is based on two different aspects and this is where the statement that “there is no such thing as truth” takes place because it depends on the plane you are and it will be the different kind of truth you will perceive and support and at the end you won’t know exactly what is true if you didn’t were in the right spot at the right time; and even though you will be able to be there, if someone else had been there too but in a different spot both of you will perceive different things from each other and get a different kind of thing, a different truth.
This happens if somebody born in a specific environment, this person will have different opinions and different views of things and would not be able to understand ideas from people of other environments that share different opinions. When thinking about non-linguistic cases of dealing with context, such an extreme as a civil war would be a good example. Environment of immense chaos is created and it’s very hard to judge on almost anything.It’s problematic to conclude who is right and who is wrong, to apply any norms of modern society.
It is almost useless to think about any moral canons and draw parallels with “normal” conditions in this case. Also, if somebody grew up in such an environment, he would have far different views on many things and wouldn’t be able to understand many people who grew up in different conditions. If we now think about such an area as arts, there are some similar troubles there as well.If one wants to interpret a painting, or a musical composition, to find out what the artist meant by his creation, many things have to be taken into account: such as the time when he lived, his country of birth and residence, and whatnot.
For example if we think what the Spanish architect Antonio Gaudi?? would design, we would be mistaken trying to deduce that his style was similar to ones of other architects of the same epoch and origin. He spent a lot of time alone, and therefore developed an extremely original style of his own.If one was to attempt to comment on any of Gaudi?? ‘s creations, he would be in trouble without a proper research in advance. This implies to many cases in analytical criticism – no stereotypes should be made to achieve a reasonable result, and as much background information as possible about the artist should be taken into account to compile an objective result.
You can firmly say that there is no such thing as a completely true thing in the whole world.http://www. coursework. info/International_Baccalaureate/Theory_of_Knowledge/ http://en.
wikipedia. org/wiki/Truth http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Context http://www.
wacc. org. uk/wacc/publications/media_development/archive/1997_3/truth_in_context_or_what_does_truth_mean http://redescolar. ilce.