In reality, while it may seem truthless, as we get various different sources of information, truth is not reflected by human emotions.
That said, in order to obtain truth, human perceptions
Reality is truthless.
Truth is based on perceptions. Whatever you believe is true is true.
It seems, truth is limited to our senses.
What if, truth is not based on senses? Truth is not based on pure perceptions of human organs? Human emotions are affecting how one perceives truth.
In order to obtain truth, there are multiple attempts. The process can be long, or can be short. This truth is not, affected by human emotions, also human perceptions.
Suppose that everyone in reality is lying to you. The information they given are nonetheless falsified. In this scenario, who should you trust?
Based on simple logic, if everyone is untrustworthy, then no one should be trusted. If no one should be trusted, who and what is left to trust? Yourself? Your very own self?
Suppose that you need to obtain information from outside world, whilst you don’t possess the means of acquiring knowledge. Who should you trust? You most certainly could not trust yourself because you are insufficient in knowledge, true knowledge. However, everyone is lying. It seems, it is impossible to obtain any form of trustworthy materials.
Truth is not interfered by human perceptions. A cake is blue, it is blue. You are colorblind, the cake does not appear blue.
Our eyeballs receive photons in the air, the photons consist of different frequencies, which ultimately become the perception of colors in our visual cortex.
Is a cake blue? If we are deprived of any step of this process, we are unable to tell whether a cake is blue or not. If we are deprived of photon, in a dark room for example, we can not tell an object in front of us is blue or not.If the frequency is tampered with, we can not tell the object is blue or not. If we are visually impaired, we can not tell the cake is blue or not.
However, does this rob off the fact, or the truth that the cake is blue?
Empiricism advocates on experience, on your senses. Which means, if your senses can not experience such an action, or an object, or a process, it is not true to you.
So, is the process of finding the truth, the prolonged process of finding a hidden truth, the mere process of satisfying and reassuring our senses? To justify the correctness of our senses?
We are humans, we can not feel, outside of our body.
If a star collapses with another, we can certainly not tell whether they collapse or not. We do not feel it, do not hear it nor do we see it.
With the help of a telescope, we can see it. We can not hear it and feel it still.
So, does that justify the fact, the stars collapse? Seemingly so.
However, are there any counter statements? I certainly can’t think of any.
If a sense is justified, thus it is true. If a sense is not justified, it is then not true.
But what if, what if our senses are lying to us?
Suppose that everyone is lying to you, and your senses are also lying to you, who do you trust? No one? Not even yourself?
If everything seems unreal, we naturally resort to our senses. Believing in our senses is a primal instinct: When we sense danger, we avoid it, for example, fire. When we see a gap between cliffs, we find ways to circumvent it. When we hear the sound of tsunami, we hurry and leave.
These actions are closely tied to our senses, our indivisible trusted senses.
There are, circumstances where you are deprived of your senses, or your senses are not functioning as normal. In a complete dark cubicle with nothing inside, you are completely locked up, there is no escape. Living inside such cubicle for several days would start to deprive you of your senses. Your become easily agitated, you hear strange sounds, you start to hallucinate.
Psychopaths are not with any normal sense. Their senses are skewed.
In fact, as long as the neurological system is not damaged, one can hardly sense anything wrong.