How We Are to Think upon Truth, Is as Diverse a Topic as Principles of Biology or Mathematics - Essay Example

Truth: How we are to think upon truth, is as diverse a topic as principles of biology or mathematics. I will examine this question in three approaches commencing from the debate of epistemology, a debate on literature and finally a look at the theory of correspondence in light of metaphysics and truth. However, diverse the topic of truth, a measure of its boundaries and applications is imperative but logically unattainable. Knowledge in philosophy denotes justified true belief. In trying to explain epistemology, philosophers developed different ideologies. The use of perception in relation to sense data to determine knowledge and, therefore, truth has yielded a lot of debate. For instance, direct realism holds that, the world consists of mind independent physical objects. Through perception, an individual is directly aware of the independent objects. Then comes the science that states, what we perceive as an object is but a reflection of light. Scientists justify their claim beyond a reasonable doubt, in which case the absence of light is equal to the inability to see the object. Perception is, however, not dependent on one sense for humans have an abundance of five. For instance, in the dark one can still hear when he bumps into the object, feel its texture and approximate its size (touch), taste the surface and take in its scent (smell). Indirect realism tries to distinguish objects that are physically real and objects perceived by the mind. Indirect realists achieve this by assuming that humans are indirectly aware of mind independent objects. Study of the human mind has revealed that there are states in which the mind cannot distinguish true perceptions from false perceptions. Such states include illusions, dreams and other phenomena such as hallucinations which are real to minds as if they were in normal states. These states, therefore, disclaim the validity of both direct and indirect realism. This, in summary, dictates that the minds interpretation of the light ergo the object and in extension truth is as far as the individual mind perceives. Idealism holds that all physical objects are nothing more than just a collection of sensory ideas. In light of this, idealist can contradictorily say that 1) we are perceptually aware of actual physical things, but 2) all experiences are experiences of mental representations. Justification and belief are not enough to make a premise true as mentioned earlier. This insufficiency results in the Gettier problem. Philosophers try to solve this problem for instance, some theorists suggest redefining reliability. Nonetheless, the state of the mind controls the senses in which case truth still relies on an individual’s perception, however, fallible. What then are universal truths? Are all human minds playing a universal trick? Truth is the relation between a thing, state of affairs and their supporting evidence. The statement made is as a result of thought and judgment which require logical constructs to determine, in which case appeal to logos is eminent. Many intellectuals see Correspondence theory as dependent on conforms of external reality, ergo, metaphysics. To justify a preposition P as there has to exist a balanced equation between the components of preposition A and intellect. The balance of this equation does not restrict to objects and facts hence can apply to feelings, emotion, and people just but a few. Correspondence theory can describe two approaches of truth namely object based and fact based. Object-based correspondence summarizes judgment (in relation to an object) as true only if associate predicates correspond to the object. Noted, two accounts in regard to predicate associations are pertinent a) forming a reference relation and b) forming a correspondence relation. In summary, believes hold true if corresponding facts remain valid and false when corresponding facts are void. The correspondence theory to a considerable extent is a defense for metaphysical realism. However, all knowledge has a foundation in which case correspondence theory can be said to bear foundations in metaphysical realism. The fact that correspondence theory conforms to facts and reality makes theorists assume that truth is as Descartes put it “transcendently clear”. There are numerous theories that challenge correspondence theory but the focus is on the relativity of truth in relation to correspondence, direct realism, indirect realism and idealism. Given, there is already a discrepancy seeing as the first part of this paper establishes that truth is relative while other philosophers deem it transcendently clear. Protagoras, a leading sophist states, “All that exists is a preconception of the human mind.” Again, this statement alludes to mental states in relation to metaphysics. Already established is the fact that mental states are prone to error. This error extends to logical constructs and synthesis of reality hence the inability to create liable intellectual facts and conforms to justify truth in light of the correspondence theory. For any one given statement, an individual should have the ability to give evidence for or against that situation for their own benefit. This statement does not support truth but encourages the ability to manipulate it for ones benefit. The extent of morality in terms of truth thus becomes debatable. Drawing the line on the level individual’s can not exceed when utilizing intellects, facts and other arguments that denote truth is transcendently difficult. Non- contradiction is the view that a preposition cannot be both true and false hence it is either true or false. From the above arguments, this fact can only apply, to some extent, on scientific facts or mathematical logic but not in real life. The affairs of human beings are as contradictory as the existence of heaven and hell (philosophically speaking) (Scheffler 61). Prior knowledge of truth suggests that all prepositions and statements have both elements of truth and falsity. The preposition can take a negative or positive form and relegate focus to a universal or nonuniversal idea. Thus, the connection between a preposition and a predicate is consequently the ability of truth to contain the preposition concept and the predicate concept. Connection denotes correspondence while containment alludes to the containment theory of truth. To relay truths in regard to facts and objects a form of communication is suffice, therefore, the need for language and literature. The modernism period of literature examines the questionability of truth. Their techniques focus on language skills, and the use of grammar to deliver philosophical views. The subjectivity of truth in philosophy presented in this literature is apparent. A second characteristic of this period is that most authors were idealists in the sense that their works reflected that the people perceive the world as a result of mental representations. For instance, T. S Eliot in the notion of private truths reflects on the metamorphosis of truth to facts on exposure to the public. One may wonder how they are to relay on truth if they are to keep it from the public. Perhaps in reference to language a truth will hold if and only if its mode of presentation is concise and non contradictory. This is because the structure of language will render a statement true or untrue in regard to an individual’s interpretations despite the principle of non-contradiction as seen in the above paragraph. A truth is either contingent or necessary. Necessary truths are Priori and rely on the principle of non-contradiction in regards to substantiation. Contingent prepositions, however, have a likelihood of defying the principle of non-contradiction. Contingent truths earn their status of truth through sufficient reason. What then is to stop an individual from using sufficient reason to justify the boundaries of the morality of truth? Perception of notions and concepts beyond the realms of the universe can also take a contingent or necessary form. To justify truths beyond the scope of human intellect begs the question of a supernatural order and existence of beings superior to humans. Facts to support this supernatural state of ideas rely on contingent truths, yet the experience, in question, is reliant on faith. Faith as an idea is, again, a state of mind subject to individual control. Faith cannot receive justification from the five senses responsible for a majority of human perceptions without contradiction. In this light, universal truths border the existence of Sherlock Holmes in which case the human mind is at will, to wonder in and out of the scope of reality. The fact that truth is relative and circumstantial remains undisputed. However, the debate is squarely on the universal circumstances by which a situation or premises are true. Truth can receive justification on the basis of how a premise X influences an individual’s Logos, Ethos and Pathos. Truth can also derive from the relative morality apparent from the premise X. Finally truth can represent the constancy of X in situation A, B or C. These three statements all have some truth in them, but they cannot entirely stand on their own as descriptions of truth. Alfred North Whitehead is of the view that claiming that there are whole truths is in effect, untrue. Works cited: Scheffler, I. Worlds of Truth. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. Read More