Every new truth is born as a heresy. Heretics - the state's innovation fund and the driving force of progress
Who is a heretic? One who deviates from prevailing or generally accepted views, rules, regulations. A subverter of traditions, an apostate, a disturber of the peace and a source of doubt about the correctness of the existing order. They are not satisfied with the current state of affairs, they put forward new ideas, destroying the foundations and solid foundations of the universe.
Who is an innovator? A person who discovers an innovation (innovation) or who introduces new ideas in some area. The central figures of all transformations in society. They haunt us, being a source of innovative conflicts, creating a revolution in people’s heads, making transformations and changes in social mechanisms, developing and introducing innovations.
A heretic who claims that we live incorrectly and an innovator who knows what and how to do, what was better - this is one and the same person. Almost any innovation leads to small or large changes in society, it forces one to say goodbye to the usual way of life, and is also associated with risk, loss of peace of mind and advantages for someone.
Accordingly, innovators are, on the one hand, dangerous people, they are often dissatisfied with everything, experience problems in relationships with the group, are conflictual and quarrelsome, on the other hand, without them, many processes in production are conserved and do not allow society to develop.
The ability to compete and win is equal to the ability to surprise. And in war, which is a more common state for humanity than peace, surprise is the only way to survive. Non-standard thinking in a standard-crappy situation finds solutions that are inaccessible to traditionalists who strictly adhere to the generally accepted canon and anathematize wrong-thinking heretics.
And heretics-innovators, using their “wrong” brains, find a way out of a hopeless situation and solutions to unsolvable problems, saving traditionalists from certain death.
Orthodox heretics and traditionalist innovators form inseparable dichotomous pairs, which, mutually complementing each other, make the state both stable and capable of expanded reproduction.
If orthodox traditionalists are the immune cells of society, heretical innovators are its regenerative system.
Heretics-innovators are unsurpassed crisis managers and start-ups, orthodox traditionalists are masters of regular management.
The presence of heretics in the state and a loyal attitude towards their “quirks” is the key to the country’s stability in crisis situations.
Tolerance for heresy, cultivated in civil society, is converted into scientific and technological progress, military victories and creative success, but makes life fun instead of good, with a constant element of unpredictability and permanent drive.
Although innovators themselves are certainly a conflict-generating factor, and therefore the attitude towards them is ambiguous, one might even say partial: from admiration to hatred, if the implementation of the proposed ideas can, on the one hand, become a powerful competitive organization, on the other hand, jeopardize the quiet life of the team.
Medieval Europe, having become infected with the Protestant heresy and having survived a stormy and bloody reformation, gave birth to so many innovations in all spheres of public life that they were enough for three hundred years of planetary domination, until the baton was taken over by renegade heretics from the New World, who were effectively complemented by the thoroughly heretical Red Empire.
But as soon as civil society began to be burdened by unpredictable innovators with their love for vertical races, and gave preference to traditional orthodox ones who joyfully slaughtered and strangled the heretical bastards, life became calm, predictable, but at the same time similar to last year’s chewing gum, with a guaranteed stagnation in both science and art.
The late USSR, modern USA and Europe, as well as traditional Muslim jurisdictions are walking examples of the sacrifice of heresy on the altar of standardization and predictability.
At the beginning of the 16th century, the artist Albrecht Durer painted a picture "Four Apostles"" The images of the apostles reveal the characteristics of the innovator’s character at different stages of the idea’s implementation: from the process of inception to material embodiment. The picture embodies four character-temperaments in the person of the saints - John, Peter, Paul and Mark, united by a common humanistic ideal of independent thought, willpower, and perseverance in the struggle for justice and truth. The painting was painted at a time when the Christian church was experiencing a period of reformation and heresy was legalized and socially approved.
Today history repeats itself... And Luther’s place is still vacant...
Current page: 5 (book has 13 pages total) [available reading passage: 9 pages]
Font:
100% +
Algorithm in action
“The state raises people: the beautiful - good, the opposite - bad” ( Socrates)
The statement I have chosen touches on the problem of the influence of government regulations on the formation of the moral qualities of citizens. In the modern world, we have the opportunity to communicate with citizens of different countries; surprisingly, civic qualities also provide information about the government structure of the country from which they came. Therefore, understanding this relationship is important for navigating the modern world.
The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates said: “The state raises people: the beautiful - good, the opposite - bad.” Thus, the author is convinced that state orders are the most important factor shaping civic qualities, moral attitudes and guidelines of people. As the state is, so are the people who make it up.
The state is understood as a special organization of political power that has significant resources that allow it to regulate a wide range of social relations. The most important feature of a state is sovereignty - the supremacy and independence of state power, its ability to exercise its powers.
In the life of society, the state performs a number of significant functions, including economic, social, and law enforcement. Socrates, when he says “the state raises people,” means a cultural-ideological, or educational function. Its essence is the formation of civic identity, the development by the younger generation of certain qualities, values, and commitment to the state.
Understanding exactly what qualities and how certain states will form in their citizens is associated with the characteristics of the political regime, a special form of the state, which reveals methods of public administration, ways of interaction between government and society, and the government’s perception of its own citizens.
A beautiful state, according to Socrates, is a democratic state. Democracy is a political system based on the idea and principles of democracy. Democratic orders require broad participation of the people in governance, development and adoption of political decisions. A democratic state needs an active, active, competent and responsible citizen who has both political knowledge and experience in implementing political procedures.
The opposite state is a totalitarian dictatorship. The totalitarian government does not need an active, thinking citizen. We need a good executor, whose duty is to strictly and clearly carry out what is prescribed by the authorities. A kind of “cog man” in a cumbersome state machine. People in a totalitarian society are deprived of the feeling and sense of freedom, but they are also freed from responsibility. They are committed to power and deeply distrustful of each other.
Let us illustrate the theoretical arguments with specific examples. Thus, any modern democratic state, for example the Russian Federation, aims to educate citizens in a democratic spirit. Special courses have been introduced into the school curriculum that teach about the structure of the state, the electoral process, and the constitutional rights of citizens. Many schools organize meetings with elected deputies and conduct excursions to legislative bodies. To develop civic competencies, school parliaments and presidents are elected. The goal is to form active and responsible citizens.
In a totalitarian society, the authorities seek to enslave citizens, suppress them, cripple them morally. Thus, in fascist Germany, Hitler’s government made millions of Germans complicit in its crimes. Convinced that “the Fuhrer thinks for each of us,” the Germans put up with concentration camps, denounced their neighbors and colleagues, and committed crimes against humanity while fighting in SS or Wehrmacht units. And only the death of the fascist regime forced the Germans to take the path of moral recovery and repentance.
For me, a school is a kind of state. To paraphrase the words of Socrates, we can admit: “The school produces graduates: the beautiful - the good, the opposite - the bad.” My school is a wonderful democratic school where the opinions of every student are respected and valued. By electing a school council, we learn how to conduct an election campaign, master voting rights and competencies. I am convinced that my school raises and educates us as good citizens.
Having examined the theoretical provisions and examples, we are convinced that the government, the state and citizens are organically connected with each other. As the state is, so are the citizens it educates.
Assessment criteria for assignment 29
Please carefully read the mini-essay evaluation criteria below.
Among the criteria by which the completion of task 29 is assessed, criterion K1 is decisive. If the graduate, in principle, did not disclose the problem raised by the author of the statement, and The expert gave 0 points for criterion K1, then the answer is not checked further. For the remaining criteria (K2, K3), 0 points are given in the protocol for checking tasks with a detailed answer.
Section 2. Essay samples
Philosophy
Dialogue of cultures“I don’t want to wall up my house or board up my windows. I want the spirit of the culture of different countries to flow as freely as possible everywhere: I just don’t want it to knock me off my feet.” (R. Tagore)
The statement I have chosen is devoted to the problem of interconnection, interdependence between different cultural traditions, and the implementation of a dialogue of cultures. Since ancient times, people have been in contact with each other and exchanged various cultural achievements. At the same time, the question of how to preserve the uniqueness of the national culture and how to prevent the aggressive invasion of other cultural traditions has always been important and relevant.
Indian writer and poet Rabindranath Tagore said: “I don’t want to wall up my house or board up my windows. I want the spirit of the culture of different countries to flow as freely as possible everywhere: I just don’t want it to knock me off my feet.”. In other words, one should not isolate one or another culture from the rest; on the contrary, one should not hinder free cultural exchange - the dialogue of cultures. But, as in everything, there must also be a measure: this “spirit of cultures” cannot be “knocked down.” I agree with the author’s opinion and am also convinced that organic dialogue between cultures is an integral part of their healthy development. But in our time, we are increasingly witnessing how the spirit of various cultures is “knocked down”, leading us astray from the true path of development, and this should not be allowed.
To provide a theoretical substantiation of this point of view, we provide a number of explanations. In modern language, scientists have about a hundred definitions of culture, but we will focus on the main one accepted by social scientists. So, in the broadest sense, culture is the totality of all material and spiritual goods created by man. Or, in other words, culture is a set of products, results, and methods of human transformative activity.
Since the modern world has become especially open to the “breathing spirit of different cultures,” the issue of dialogue between cultures should be addressed. The dialogue of cultures in the social sciences is understood as the relationship and interpenetration between the cultures of different countries and peoples. During the dialogue of cultures, some cultures borrow something from others, join some traditions, and sometimes even revise their values due to trade contacts, all sorts of conquests, and historical features of relationships. This makes peoples more tolerant of each other and often contributes to the resolution of interethnic conflicts.
But the dialogue of cultures does not always occur naturally and organically. In the modern world we see a lot of evidence of this. The most striking of these inconsistencies arise in the course of globalization. Globalization is usually defined as a process of integration between countries and peoples, affecting all spheres of society and associated with the formation of a single humanity. In this context we are talking about integrations in the spiritual sphere. And since globalization is a contradictory and ambiguous process, inconsistencies also appear in this area. But what are these discrepancies?
Here we are undoubtedly talking about Westernization - the imposition of Western standards, values and cultural aspects on the Eastern world. And this aspect of the dialogue of cultures, of course, “knocks you down”, because it leads to the destruction of national culture and provokes a negative reaction from Eastern countries that do not intend to calmly watch how foreign traditions completely supplant their special, centuries-developed culture , with its own special values and foundations.
An example of a healthy organic dialogue of cultures, aimed exclusively at the development and strengthening of the cultures participating in it, can be an annual event dedicated to a specific country. For example, 2012 was the “cross year” of Russia in Germany and Germany in Russia. This, albeit focally, organically provokes a dialogue of cultures aimed at introducing citizens of one country to another culture and vice versa. This undoubtedly has a lot of positive consequences, starting with an increase in the level of education of the population and ending with an increase in the level of tolerance and a lower likelihood of interethnic conflicts.
And finally, even the modern world knows examples of countries isolated for cultural dialogue. This living example is the DPRK, or North Korea. At one time, under the USSR, the “Iron Curtain” was lowered there and the strictest censorship was introduced, that is, the spirit of various cultures blowing outside was simply not able to get there. Moreover, cultural dialogue is impossible even within, since 99% of the population is Korean, and the remaining percentage is divided between the Chinese and Japanese. Thus, without receiving input from the outside, culture is simply unable to develop and is forced to mark time.
I can give my school as an example from personal experience. My school is open to various trends of everything new, capable of adopting the latest techniques, and conducting special programs proposed by other educational institutions. Therefore, we can say that we see a clear development of the educational system in a single institution, while there are a lot of schools whose leadership flatly refuses any innovations and closes the doors to them. In such schools there is no progress in the educational system; the same methods and methods of teaching have been used for decades.
True“Every truth is born as a heresy and dies as a prejudice” (T. G. Huxley)
In the statement I have chosen, the author touches on the problem of the evolution of human knowledge as a process of endless advancement from one relative truth to another. At all times, man has tried to get to the bottom of things, to get to the truth. This is the very essence of knowledge, which many philosophers have identified as the main ability of man, what distinguishes him from animals.
The 19th century English agnostic scientist Thomas Henry Huxley said: “Every truth is born as a heresy and dies as a prejudice.” In other words, he believed that any truth, when it comes to light, is ahead of its time, seems unnatural, unreal. And after some time, with a deeper study of the subject, it turns out that this truth does not at all provide the complete knowledge that it should give, and dies out as an unreliable relic of the past. I share the point of view of T. Huxley and also believe that the process of man’s cognition of the world around him does not stand still, which means that we are constantly learning something new about seemingly already fully studied objects and phenomena. And in such cases, our knowledge about these objects and phenomena becomes outdated, and what once seemed an incredible heresy, did not fit into human minds, now becomes a thing of the past as a prejudice.
To more fully substantiate the chosen point of view, let us turn to theoretical arguments. First of all, this statement is associated with such a type of human activity as cognition. Cognition, in essence, is the very process during which a person tries to find the truth mentioned in the statement. It is important to note that the statement I have chosen fully corresponds to an agnostic worldview regarding the process of cognition. Agnosticism (in the field of cognition) means a philosophical trend, which lies in the fact that a person is not capable of knowing the world, but is only capable of knowing his subjective images. In other words, agnostics deny man's ability to reach the truth.
So what is truth? Modern social scientists define truth as knowledge that is reliable, that is, fully consistent with the cognizable object or phenomenon. Truths can be divided into two categories: absolute and relative. Absolute truth is complete, final, exhaustive knowledge about a subject - the ideal end result of the process of cognition. Relative truth presupposes any reliable knowledge. That is, all reliable knowledge acquired by a person is relative truth. Just as a separate characteristic of truth is its objectivity. Objective truth is knowledge free from subjective factors, an objective reflection of reality.
To confirm the truth of this or that knowledge, scientists identify various criteria of truth. For example, Marxist philosophers believed that the universal criterion of truth is its confirmation by practice. But, since not all knowledge can be tested in practice, other criteria of truth are also identified. Such as, for example, the construction of a logically consistent system of evidence or the obviousness and axiomatic nature of truth. These criteria are mainly used in mathematics. Another criterion may be common sense. Also, some modern philosophers highlight the competent opinion of a group of scientists as a criterion of truth. This is typical of modern science, especially for narrow areas. In this context, I would like to recall the saying of the German publicist and writer Ludwig Börne: “Truth is a delusion that has lasted for centuries. An error is a truth that lasted only a moment.”
In addition to theoretical justifications, a number of specific arguments can also be given. Perhaps the most striking example is the rejection of the geocentric system of the world (the idea of the structure of the universe, according to which the central position in the Universe is occupied by the stationary Earth, around which the Sun, Moon, planets and stars revolve). During the scientific revolution of the 17th century, it became clear that geocentrism is incompatible with astronomical facts and contradicts physical theory; The heliocentric system of the world gradually established itself. That is, just as at first the truth appeared sensationally and improbably, saying that the Earth is not just a part of the Universe, but also its center, so later it gave way to new knowledge.
Another example can be given. Ancient people could not explain many natural phenomena, such as rain, thunder, and the sun. But since a person needs to give an explanation for what is happening, to understand incomprehensible phenomena, they were explained by the actions of heavenly forces - the gods. For the ancient Slavs, the true knowledge of thunder was that the god Perun was angry with his people. But can we consider this to be true in our days, when we seem to have thoroughly studied these phenomena from a scientific point of view? Of course not. Moreover, such points of view are perceived in the modern world not just as prejudice, but as stupidity and ignorance.
Every new knowledge has a certain audacity. Let us recall, for example, the situation at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when people were sure that there was nothing left to study: everything had been studied and open. Physics departments began to close everywhere, and scientists began to abandon their activities. But great discoveries were yet to come. The fission of atoms, X-rays were discovered, Einstein discovered the theory of relativity, and much more. At that time, this knowledge seemed unnatural and revolutionary. However, now we perceive these things as obvious and established.
And, finally, what could be more obvious and axiomatic, even for a person not particularly knowledgeable in mathematics, than the fact that a straight line passes through two points in space, and only one? But this is true only in Euclidean geometry (3rd century BC). In Lobachevsky's geometry (mid-19th century) this axiom is not true at all. And in general, all Euclidean geometry is only a special case of Lobachevsky geometry.
You can also give an example from life experience. I think that every person has or had a friend about whom, it would seem, everything is known: his behavior is predictable, his character is well studied, it seems to us that we have developed true knowledge about this person. We may know, for example, about his kindness, and what will be our surprise when we see with our own eyes that this person is capable of cruelty. It is at this moment that the axiom falls into the category of prejudices.
Thus, after analyzing theoretical and actual examples, we can conclude that, indeed, any truth has its own “expiration date.” Appearing as something incomprehensible and unacceptable, it becomes part of our consciousness, truth in the usual sense of the word, and then dies under the pressure of new ideas, knowledge and progress.
Scientific progress"The only problem of modern times is whether man can survive his own inventions" ( L. de Broglie)
The statement I have chosen is related to the problem of how scientific progress is combined with morality and morality. As a person develops, he begins to consider himself omnipotent, since his inventions (especially in the modern world) are capable of things that were previously impossible to even imagine.
French theoretical physicist Louis de Broglie believed that modern science had developed so much that man should even be wary of his inventions. In other words, the “problem of modernity” is that often human inventions are much stronger than man himself. It is impossible to disagree with this position. More and more often, people go beyond the permissible limits of knowledge; their inventions can contradict humanistic values, endanger the lives of other people and even the entire planet.
The following theoretical principles can be cited to substantiate the stated point of view. When discussing human inventions and their feasibility, we are faced with the question of scientific and technological progress and its inconsistency. Modern social sciences define social progress as changes occurring in society and leading from lower to higher, from primitive to more advanced. That is, if we are talking about the scientific and technical side of progress, then we need to talk about moving forward, towards something more advanced in the field of science, creating a better future for people through science. But in this area one of the factors of inconsistency of progress manifests itself: the same invention can be aimed both at the benefit of humanity and at the same time bring harm to it, endangering the lives and health of people.
Another aspect of the problem raised in the statement, in my opinion, is the expediency and humanistic orientation of scientific knowledge. In the modern world, the most active is the humanistic orientation of science. Humanism must be used to measure everything that modern science creates. In social science, humanism is understood as a historically changing system of views that recognizes as the highest value a person’s life worthy in all respects, his rights to security, freedom, happiness, development and manifestation of his abilities, which considers the well-being of man as the main criterion of progress, and the principles of equality, justice, humanity - the desired norm of relations between people. That is, if human inventions endanger the life, safety, health (physical and moral) of a person, then they cannot be considered humane and should not be mastered by a person.
In addition to theoretical justification, actual examples can be given. So, for example, such inventions as, for example, weapons of mass destruction, various nuclear technologies, and the entire class of military industry fully fit the description of de Broglie. Such inventions are aimed at destroying people, although sometimes they are evidence of the undoubted genius of their inventor. Moreover, at the moment there are types of weapons of mass destruction in the world that are capable of wiping out all life from the face of the Earth in a matter of minutes. This means that, having such inventions in his arsenal, a person undoubtedly jeopardizes his existence.
Another example can be considered a whole class of inventions, the functioning of which provokes environmental pollution, and therefore threatens the life of the entire planet. By disturbing the ecology with his inventions, destroying the natural balance in nature, man is slowly but surely bringing a global catastrophe closer, the consequences of which terrify even the most optimistic scientists.
And finally, we can give an example from fiction. All fans of science fiction are firmly aware of the three laws of robotics, formulated by the American science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. Moreover, these laws are recognized by scientists all over the world, and not only apply to robotics, but also to other technical discoveries and even social institutions. In the original, these laws state: firstly, “a robot cannot cause harm to a person or, through inaction, allow harm to come to a person,” secondly, “a robot must obey all orders given by a person, except in cases where these orders contradict the First Law,” and, finally, thirdly, “a robot must take care of its safety to the extent that this does not contradict the First and Second Laws.” Thus, A. Azimov formulated laws that correspond to the safety of the relationship between man and his creation.
You can also give an example from personal experience. In almost every modern home you can find a TV, or even several, a microwave oven, a computer, a laptop, and a radio. Perhaps almost every person has a mobile phone in their pocket or bag. For modern people, these things have become commonplace and irreplaceable. However, scientists have proven that the waves emitted by these devices can negatively affect human health and provoke various diseases. That is, even simple, everyday things can pose a danger.
Thus, indeed, many of the inventions can pose a real threat both to an individual and to all humanity. This means that the humanistic and moral justification of scientific knowledge is necessary for a person to be able to survive his own inventions.
Truth is one or more compromising facts.
G. Mencken
The truth is a delusion that has lasted for centuries. A misconception is a truth that lasted only a moment.
K. Berne
Truth is a prejudice that has managed to become an axiom.
E. Hubbard
The truth destroys so many delusions and errors that all who live in lies rebel and want to kill the truth. First of all, they attack its carrier.
O. Balzac
The ultimate truth is the beginning of its pursuit.
G. Malkin
Truth and freedom are so remarkable that everything that is done for them and against them serves them equally.
V. Hugo
Poor truth. She is never like herself.
Alexey Arbuzov
Class truth is an absurd phrase. But there may be a class lie.
Nikolay Berdyaev
Truth is like a coquette, allowing only a glimpse of some of its charms to its seekers in order to excite them even more.
P. Buast
Truth is rarely pure and never unambiguous.
O. Wilde
Truth is born as heresy and dies as prejudice.
I. Goethe
Truth, like everything beautiful in this world, exerts its beneficial influence only on those who have experienced the cruel influence of lies. Truth is that hidden feeling that teaches us to enjoy life and makes us desire this joy for all people.
D. Gibran
Any truth that people with limited spiritual horizons take to heart will inevitably be defended, spread and even put into practice as if there was no other truth on earth, at least one that could limit it.
D. Mill
Any truth that is kept silent becomes poisonous.
F. Nietzsche
The most sublime truth tomorrow, in the light of new thought, may seem trivial.
R. Emerson
An offensive truth is no higher than an offensive lie.
The truth is not as beneficial as its appearance is harmful.
F. La Rochefoucauld
The first victim of injustice is always the truth.
D. Volkogonov
The opposite of truth is another truth.
J. Wolfrom
It is a sufficient triumph for truth when it is accepted by a few, but worthy ones: to be pleasing to everyone is not its lot.
D. Diderot
The more banal the words sound, the more truth they contain.
author unknown
Version is a dog with the help of which they search for the truth.
author unknown
Proclaiming the truth, offering something useful to people, is a sure way to cause persecution.
Voltaire
The main obstacle to knowing the truth is not a lie, but the semblance of the truth.
L. Tolstoy
It is much easier to find an error than the truth. The error lies on the surface, and you notice it immediately, but the truth is hidden in the depths, and not everyone can find it.
I. Goethe
In order for one person to discover a fruitful truth, it is necessary for a hundred people to burn their lives to ashes in unsuccessful searches and sad mistakes.
D. Pisarev
If you want to know the truth about yourself, look for it from your enemies - they will tell you.
John Chrysostom
Everyone thought that he possessed the truth, and yet it remained equally hidden from them all until this day.
J. Boehme
He who seeks truth is no stranger to error.
I. Goethe
People usually believe that it is better to be mistaken in the crowd than to follow the truth alone.
To Helvetius
Our enemies are much closer to the truth in their judgments about us than we are ourselves.
F. La Rochefoucauld
There is nothing more disgusting than the truth if it is not on our side.
D. Halifax
Contradiction is the criterion of truth, the absence of contradiction is the criterion of error.
G. Hegel
The torch of truth often burns the hand of the one who carries it.
P. Buast
Thousands of paths lead to error, but only one to truth.
J. J. Rousseau
Each truth has its own boundaries of manifestation. For example, many sages claim that time is money. But those who have a lot of free money, for example, idle people, clearly have little money.
V. Zubkov
The worst enemy of truth is often not lies, deliberate, inventive and dishonest, but myth - tenacious, believable and fascinating.
D. Kennedy
To understand the truth, you must suffer through it.
V. Zubkov
What, after all, are human truths? These are irrefutable human delusions.
F. Nietzsche
L. Chukovskaya
The greatest truths are the simplest.
L. Tolstoy
It is the simplest truths that a person comprehends the most later.
L. Feuerbach
Many great truths were first blasphemous.
B. Shaw
There are truths that are so obvious that it is impossible to get them into your head.
A. Mare
We speak of paradoxes because of the impossibility of finding truths that are not banal.
J. Condorcet
People are most precious because they neglect banal truths.
F. Nietzsche
True words are not pleasant, pleasant words are not true.
Lao Tzu
On all issues, convincing evidence is revealed to us only when we are already sufficiently convinced of the truth of what is being proven.
I. Eotwes
Life is like games: some come to compete, others to trade, and others to watch; so in life, others, like slaves, are born greedy for fame and profit, while philosophers are born greedy for the truth alone.
Pythagoras (c. 650–c. 569 BC), ancient Greek mathematician
Three stages of recognition of scientific truth: first – “this is absurd”, second – “there is something in this”, third – “this is generally known”.
Ernest Rutherford (1871–1937), English physicist
The truth is in the middle.
Moses Maimonides (1135–1204), Jewish philosopher
They say the truth lies between two opposing opinions. Wrong! There is a problem between them.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe (1749–1832), German poet
The opposite of a true statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a deep truth can be another deep truth.
Niels Bohr (1885–1962), Danish physicist
Truth: An imaginary line dividing error in two.
Elbert Hubbard (1859–1915), American writer
Perhaps two errors fighting each other are more fruitful than one truth reigning supreme.
Jean Rostand (1894–1977), French biologist
Clarity is such an obvious property of truth that they are often even confused with each other.
Joseph Joubert (1754–1824), French writer
It is much easier to find error than truth.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
There are truths so obvious that they cannot be proven.
Arkady Davidovich (b. 1930), writer
Absolute truths are absolutely useless.
Sylvia Cheese (b. 1946), Belgian journalist
There is no way a person can worship one truth without stepping on the toe of another.
Friedrich Goebbel (1813–1863), German playwright
Every truth is destined for one moment of triumph between infinity, when it is considered untrue, and infinity, when it is considered trivial.
Henri Poincaré (1854–1912), French mathematician and physicist
If geometric axioms affected people's interests, they would be refuted.
Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), English philosopher
Every truth is born as a heresy and dies as a prejudice.
Thomas Huxley (1825–1895), British biologist
Having renounced the truth, I felt like Galileo.
Arkady Davidovich
Scientific truth triumphs as its opponents die out.
Paraphrased Max Planck (1858–1947), German physicist
