Philosophy Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for those interested in the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
I thought they meant the same thing, but after asking about it in a philosophical forum, I was told they are different, but how so?
Are there universal meanings attributed to "conditional truth" and "relative truths" or can they mean anything you want them to mean with each philosopher having their own definitions of these terms?
According to Wikipedia,
Relativism is the idea that views are relative to differences in perception and consideration. There is no universal, objective truth according to relativism; rather each point of view has its own truth.
A relative truth in this context might be one that is not viewed as objective.
According to Wikipedia,
In semantics and pragmatics, a truth condition is the condition under which a sentence is true. For example, "It is snowing in Nebraska" is true precisely when it is snowing in Nebraska. Truth conditions of a sentence don't necessarily reflect current reality. They are merely the conditions under which the statement would be true.
Conditional truth would be a truth that has conditions. It need not be a relative truth since the condition need not be "relative to differences in perception and consideration".
Since these definitions come from Wikipedia they might be considered common meanings for these terms but the person one is reading might define them differently.
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, May 3). Relativism. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:13, July 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Relativism&oldid=895357583
Wikipedia contributors. (2019, May 9). Truth condition. In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 20:12, July 8, 2019, from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Truth_condition&oldid=896250680
The term conditional truth can vary in meaning. In Mathematical logic a conditional truth is a sentence that has the IF . . . THEN . . . Structure. This structure expresses the said relationship is necessary; that is, if the first part after the word IF (words before the THEN) is true then the second part (the words after the THEN) must also be true. You can't have a true part then a false part in the structure just mentioned.
In other context the IF . . . THEN structure may not be identical to the math version. Sometimes one can express a sufficient condition for the structure of the sentence to be true such as "if you have a grade of 65 or above then you pass thus class." One may think how is that different from the first case in math. Well this example is NOT necessary or guaranteed. I can very well Still fail a class even though my grade average is above 65. I can have too many absences for instance or get caught red handed cheating on the final exam! Either way there are ways of failing the class even when the first part is true. The consequent the part after THEN does not depend on the first part literally. The first part is a WAY to pass the class. Many if . . . Then . . . Structures like this have many ways to arrive at the consequent--not just one way.
The relative truth you mention is another way of saying x is NOT TRUE 100 percent of the time. This is also called a contingent truth. For example, it rained today is not forever true. It can be true on Monday and false on Tuesday. Another thing the term relative can indicate is that inside knowledge of a topic is needed to resolve or understand the context. This still becomes a truth that is not the case 100 percent. A truth that is 100 percent without fail or exception is called an objective truth. Hopefully this helps.
I would first start with the βfactβ that there is an idea of universality and a view of relativism. Even under strong assumptions and rules like seen in axiomatic systems, GΓΆdelβs incompleteness theorems help us understand that there are limits to what universality/existentiality contrast means and all the bunch of paradoxes or aporias directly or not derived βespecially the famous antinomy of the liar. There is also an epistemological assertion that holds everything outside the mind is uncertain, which is called Solipsism.
An excellent approach to study what a truth is, may start with what is called "true" judgements. The truthfulness is said to be a quality that "truths" possess. What is unconditionally true despite time or any other contexts is considered absolute truth. Those truths that are determined by circumstances are defined as relative truths. In modal epistemology, you can find conditional "truths" while in deontology, you find categorical "truths". The former is linked to the question of what is necessary or sufficient (better in the sense of metaphysical possibility). The latter refers to what is linked to an imperative to evaluate motifs behind actions.
Pretty compelling evidence of conditional (sometimes interchangeably relative) truths that can be thought as absolutes under specific systems of proof is the well-known Euclidβs fifth postulate during thousands of years until the 19th century where it could be proven that is not βeverywhereβ true. This finding opened a set of axioms or relative truths to describe what is now known as absolute geometry, which avoids the postulate plus Hyperbolic, Elliptic and Thurston geometries with different interpretations. Cases like this abound in sciences.
References
Leibniz's Philosophy of Logic and Language
Modal Epistemology After Rationalism
Naturalism and Normativity
The Neurology of Consciousness: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuropathology
The Categories of Dialectical Materialism: Contemporary Soviet Ontology