Exposing the Falsehood of the Truth in On the Nature of the UniverseTruth is in the eye of the beholder. Or is it? Questions regarding the nature of truth have always been central not only to philosophers, but to all men (and women, of course) who possess even the slightest desire for knowledge. Indeed, although truth itself is an elusive concept, it is also the underlying theme of all science - which is the basis of knowledge - and therefore those who seek learning must first discover their own truth about the world; without strong conviction, the elusive nature of truth will only serve to confuse and mislead the student of life. A person who lacks a basic understanding of truth will never be able to fully grasp the subtle distinction between appearance and reality, yet the ability to separate the two is essential for anyone interested in knowledge at a higher level, where appearances lead only down alleys blind. Or do they? And who says appearance isn't reality? At the heart of this question is the conflict between absolute truth and the truth of the senses; although this may seem like a trivial question (the truth is true, right?), it is anything but. If there really is an absolute truth, as the Socratics claim, then all attempts to understand the universe are futile, since the human senses can never adequately grasp a truth that is so far above everyday experience. On the other hand, the Epicurean view of truth is much more encouraging; after all, this explanation of truth as a property of the senses offers the hope that individuals have the capacity to create, and therefore understand, their own universe. The Epicureans, supporting the truth of the senses, essentially maintain that everything that appears to be something, really is, while the followers of Socrates argue... in the middle of the paper... that this debate on its relativity can ever be resolved in satisfactory way. However both philosophies have valid arguments, and each also has its merits from the point of view of the common man; while Plato's truth appeals to knowledge seekers and idealists who dream of a perfect world, Lucretius' definition of truth brings comfort to those who need to believe that what they can see and hear is a reliable representation of reality. Both of these explanations may be valid, but the question remains, and will continue to haunt philosophers as long as man continues to philosophize: what is truth, and if someone accidentally stumbles upon its true nature, how will he be able to recognize it when all that has? Is the art of doubt learned? BibliographyLucretius. On the nature of the universe. Tr. KING Latham. Introduction by John Godwin. Penguin Books, London: 1994.