What is truth? We may say something is true if it is successfully explained how that statement is able to come about in consideration with its premises and consequent. It must be able to satisfy the conditional and it must also be verified universally, also experienced by others. Relativity may also bring about truth. Due to the fact that now we have pre-formulated truths, If we have a statement we may say it is true if the coherence of the parts of the idea is supported by those pre-formulated truths.
Can we say that there exist an ultimate truth? I believe it does not do so. We must put into consideration that anything that happens around a system may affect the outcome of an idea or problem. In our real world,we say a person may do experiments, researches and information gathering so that it may help him in defining truth. If another person, however, does the same plans in another place opposite as the other it may come out differently. An example is Newton and Aristotle. Newton says things fall in the same rate without considering air resistance. Aristotle on the other hand says heavier objects fall faster. We may say both are correct the problem is their difference of scenario. Aristotle's scenario is suggested in a world same as ours while Newton's is somewhere without air resistance. Just as I say perspectivity and difference in factors are barriers for such a formulation of an ultimate truth.
If we say there is no more ultimate truth, then we say that philosophy is senseless? Philosophy is the quest for knowledge. I believe we are not searching for an ultimate truth but rather we question the ambiguity of ideas. Philosophy then still serves its purpose, to give reasons to happenings and be able to prove its possibility. I say that it is absurd to assume that philosophy will be senseless if we void the existence of the ultimate truth.The causality of things cannot show any sign of ultimate truth because it may be seen in different perspective as was said above but it does not void the possibility of an idea to be valid.
What if a truth is voided out because of another idea? We then go back to perspectivity. We may say the first idea is logically valid. However, their are instances when some other idea is more detailed which is why it is more accepted. Choosing which is true is not a problem there for it really just happens that another idea is detailed. It is simply stereo typed that if an idea is voided out of circulation it is already considered false.
My definition is different if compared to others. The definition of Truth is also something to be think about. There really is no common definition for truth as defined by many people. Even the truth of the "truth" happens to be a problem. But I say again, perspectivity does not void out the possibility of an idea to be true, rather it is placed in as a factor affecting the system. I there for conclude that the definition and assumptions I have presented are true if put in my perspective.
