The Classical Theories of Truth - Essay Example

Running head: Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge [Writer’s Name] [Institution’s Name] Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge “The nominal definition of truth, that is the agreement of [a cognition] with its object, is assumed as granted” – Kant (Niiniluoto, Sintonen, & Woleński, 2004, p.338) I begin my discussion on the topic with the question that what sorts of things can be true and that what the principal issues of truth are. When we say that is it true that universe is made up of many galaxies? The astronauts are to solve this problem and test the authenticity of this statement. However, the role of philosophy comes into play when we reframe our question and ask what we mean when we say that the universe is made up of many galaxies. Truth has been defined by various philosophers: from Plato to Aristotle; from Hegel to Spinoza; from William James to Richard Rorty (Roth & Salem Press, 1994). All of these great philosophers have put forward various theories on truth that sum up these core parameters that truth is the set of propositions, beliefs, reality or something that our minds permit. There is a fine line between knowledge and belief. Epistemology is the study of the theory of knowledge and is among the most important areas of philosophy (Audi, 2003). The questions that it addresses include: What is knowledge? From where do we get our knowledge? How are our beliefs justified? Knowledge is the subset of truth and beliefs that has both attributes (Alexander & Winne, 2006). Therefore, if someone believes something, he/she thinks that it is true, but he/she may be mistaken. It is important for knowledge to be true as it confirms the absolute reality. However, it is not necessary that the belief is true. What you believe is true might not be true for others. For example, you believe to possess the greatest knowledge and intellectual smartness whereas in reality you might be a person of average intelligence. The three classical theories of truth are the correspondence theory, the coherence theory and the pragmatic theory (Joad, 2005). In the text below a discussion will be presented of correspondence and pragmatic theories in detail. Meanwhile a synopsis is given of the theories in a few lines. The correspondence theory views truth as an appropriate relationship between a statement and a fact. The coherence theory says that truth is not separate from reality; rather it is integrated in a totally rationalized system that provides a comprehensive description of all realities. The pragmatic theory equates truth with usefulness (Merricks, 2007). Among all the theories on truth, the one of Aristotle sounds much genuine in underlying things and making a true justification of the reality of truth. His theory was based on the actual origination of Plato concept of truth in the correspondence theory of truth. Aristotle redefined Plato's definition in Metaphysics 1011b25. He says: "To say that what is, is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is, is, and what is not is not, is true" – Aristotle (Keuth, 2005, p.141). Aristotle’s idea can be explained in simple terms: truth is anything that corresponds to reality; it depends on the objectivity of its existence. In the correspondence theory there is a distinction made between facts and beliefs. Fact is something which corresponds to the circumstances in the world while belief is an opinion about those circumstances. Facts cannot be true or false – it is the way the world is. A belief, however, can be true or false because it may or may not accurately describe the world. There are three important dimensions of the concept of truth in the light of the correspondence theory. First is the proposition, second is the fact and third is the verification or the confirmation of the facts. The correspondence theory stresses on our common sense intuition that truth depends on something which can be verified as true with our beliefs, objective, and the nature of its existence and most importantly, the reality itself. For example the earth is round, God exists and snow is white. According to this theory there exists a correlation between fact and proposition. But there is an argument against this notion whether this correlation always exists in reality or not. So far no one has successfully given any evidence or proof as to how to get a correlation between these elements of the correspondence theory of truth. The positive contribution of correspondence theory is the simplicity of truth. According to this theory truth is the obvious element of natural reality. According to Descartes: “I have never had any doubts about the truth, because it seems a notion so transcendentally clear that nobody can be ignorant of it…the word truth in its strict sense, denotes the conformity of thought with its object” (Gaukroger, 1989, p.52). With the positive arguments we also see objections on this theory by various philosophers and thinkers. The definition of truth is thought to be too broad. They might explain the domain of truth in the essence of scientific knowledge but they fail to give a disclosure on the morality of truth. Hume defines truth in a logical and non-logical sense: “Truth or falsehood consists in an agreement and disagreement, either to the real relations of ideas, or to real existence or matter of fact” – Hume (Liu, 2003, p.123). Some philosophers think that correspondence theory is too obvious and at the same time obscure. It is obvious in a way that it “corresponds to reality” and it is obscure in a way that sometimes it is difficult to get a correlation between the natural elements of facts. For instance, the man is sitting on the chair, it is a fact which can be seen and pictured but we can’t draw any correlation between the man and the chair. The other theory which will be talked about in this essay is “the pragmatic theory of truth” and this theory will be compared with the former theory discussed. The pragmatic theory of truth was primarily initiated by William James. He says that: “The true is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the “right” is only expedite in our way of behaving” (Hall, Titchener & Washburn, 1908, p.411). James’ theory was focused on the religious belief of truth where objective evidence was insufficient to prove the belief. Our belief in God is one such case where we cannot prove its existence yet it is true. According to James, truth is what makes us believe in something which makes us happy. According to him our belief in God makes us happy and protected. We find various arguments going against James’ theory of truth which can be said to be quite logical because believing in something on the mere grounds that it makes us happy and satisfied without actually knowing the authenticity of that truth is deceiving ones moral values and self esteem. According to James if we succeed then our practical success is truth for us. Wars which were fought resulting in only the destruction of peace and human lives can be justified by this theory as it was a source of success and happiness for the ruling country. However, the fact was that no matter how much success and kingdom was attained by the conqueror, on the cost of human and physical capital. The pragmatic theory points at the notion of truth in the sense of subject believing in truth or the subject can justify in believing it to be true. But it is important to have an objective justification which is independent of our mindset for something to be true. Pragmatic theory lacks this independence justification of believe and truth. In my view point the correspondence theory of truth is more satisfactory than the pragmatic theory of truth as it conveys the truth in its real objective justification that relates to the reality itself. With the pragmatic theory we can never judge whether our beliefs are true or not. With the pragmatic theory we can never distinguish the truth of love and hatred, unity and disarray, strength and weakness because to us love, unity and strength might not, in reality, be the actual objectivity of these elements. In pragmatism there is a mis relationship between his/her beliefs and facts. In the correspondence theory the facts are logically justified and rationalized that also corresponds to the natural reality. It supports the scientific theories and law of nature; human behavior and attitude unlike the pragmatic theory that to a certain degree gives the deceiving picture of truth and is only dependant on the “success” of something to believe it to be true. References Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (2006). Handbook of educational psychology. Florence, Kentucky: Routledge. Audi, R. (2003). Epistemology: a contemporary introduction to the theory of knowledge. Florence, Kentucky: Routledge. Gaukroger, S. (1989). Cartesian logic: an essay on Descartes's conception of inference. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Hall, .G. S., Titchener E. B., & Washburn, M. F. (1908). The American journal of psychology, Volume 19. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press. Joad, C. E. M. (2005). Guide to Philosophy. Whitefish, Montana: Kessinger Publishing. Keuth, H. (2005). The philosophy of Karl Popper. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Liu, X. (2003). Mencius, Hume, and the foundations of ethics. Surrey: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Merricks, T. (2007). Truth and ontology, Volume 171. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Niiniluoto, I., Sintonen, M., & Woleński, J. (2004). Handbook of epistemology. New York: Springer Science & Business. Roth, J. K., & Salem Press. (1994). Ethics: Pessimism and optimism-Zoroastrian ethics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Salem Press. Read More