Letter to a Philosopher

After reading the theory which you and Mr. C. S. Peirce believes, whom you give credit for introducing pragmatic philosophy to the United States, have on "absolute truth", I was enthralled along with also being enigma. According to the text (Moore & Bruder, 2011, p.206), fixed absolute truth is rejected by pragmatists. The text goes on to states purpose, time, and place are constantly changing. Therefore meaning when one or all of these elements changes, the truth also changes. I can understand why you and Mr. Peirce both believe truth is not fixed and not absolute.

When I read this paragraph I immediately thought of two philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. If I take a stance with Plato position and believe "absolute truth" is in essence something intangible which is not of this world. For someone who takes a position with Plato one would have to believe, truth cannot change. Truth is both absolute and fixed. According to Plato truth is not the mere essence of what society deems as truth. Truth according to Plato is very much fixed. Truth cannot be changed by time or purpose because new data may be introduced. However; per our textbook, it appears to me both you and Mr. Peirce lean more toward Aristotle, truth is a composite of one or more elements using the human senses. For instance if we would use an analogy using the "wind", we can say although we cannot see the wind we can use man sense of feel to feel the wind.

The wind depending upon the type of weather could brush against one's cheek in a warm soft manner or a brisk stinging cold manner. I must admit there are many things which were true many years ago are not true today. For instance if we would review the history of information technology and medical technology 200 years ago we would see what held true then is not true today. New data over the previous 200 years has been introduced which has which caused a huge evolution in both technologies. Then one must agree the truth would not be fixed and would be depending upon the surrounding at a given moment in time.

Personally I am torn between pragmatic philosophy and Plato's theory of knowledge pertaining to "absolute truth". In one perspective I do believe "absolute truth" is intangible. Plato's theory makes me wonder if the new data being introduce to change the truth is only the information which one is introducing from information he or she has remembered from a past life or lives and now present because the current society is now ready to receive and understand such knowledge. Maybe Plato believe if new data was introduce, it would only overly exaggerated truth or even to the extreme opposite to distort the truth. The truth which is intangible will withstand time (minutes, days, weeks, month, and years) cannot be exaggerated or distorted.

When reviewing your theory, one can believe as time has progressed and continue