All that "truth" comes to us is the result of our fight to achieve the truth. Since our early years, we always believe that there must be correctness and falsehood, and we are constantly looking for 'correct' answers. Unlike school multi-choice test, life thinks we have more than one correct answer. Once we learned that some questions are not answered at all or are too complicated to understand. However, we have never stopped trying to find the ultimate truth.
In the huge literature on truth, there are many ideas on how to define the truth. The most troubling attempt Molineu is trying to adopt is the correspondence theory of truth that is usually attributed to Aristotle, and the truth of the proposition is determined by the relationship between the proposition and a specific part of reality. He proposed the following concept of this relationship: This is confirmed by the premise, so the condition we need to see the statement truly is that it is empirically verifiable. But this concept of truth is self-destructive. After all, the remark that "All truths can be verified by experience" can not be verified by experience itself, but it may be true.
The truth is unique to an individual. As a phenomenologist, for me, I feel hungry more than 2 + 3 = 5. We can not "verify objectively" the truth with experience or other means. Our standard of defining the truth is always relative and subjective. Whether it is moral, scientific or artistic, what we believe is true is transferred with general intellectual wind, and therefore it is socially, culturally As well as by technical norms. Non - Euclidean geometry is at least partially impairing the tautological nature of the so - called geometry - it is often thought that it is grounds to argue that rationalist can provide knowledge as a reason. This means that the authenticity of geometry is closely related to your personal view. Because the mathematical paradigm is "real" than its viable alternative.