Philosophy of Truth

There are many theories on the meaning of truth, and with those theories come beliefs and questions as to why one is more adequate than the others. The theory that I will discuss as the most adequate is the correspondence theory. Honestly, I don 't possess the capabilities to fully determine the most sufficient theory of truth. I do, however, have empirical evidence and solid reasoning to support the correspondence theory. There are many valid arguments and questions of this theory that I am not qualified to completely refute. For the sake of this essay I am only able to continue this age old discussion, not to conclude with an exact theory of truth to follow. First I will introduce the basic ideas of the correspondence theory and then I will show why I support these ideas. Then I will present what some other philosophers have said in regards to the correspondence theory and how I interpret these statements. To end, I will discuss the basic arguments against the correspondence theory, and show reasons as to why these arguments are applicable to any theory. The concept of the correspondence theory says that a statement is true only if the facts given match up with reality. (Solomon p.268) This can be a very simple approach to determining the truth. The basic idea is that if, based on my understanding of reality, the statement given matches that reality then the statement is true. If the statement does not correspond to reality then it is false. A statement is a sentence that can be determined to be true or false but not both at the same time. So ultimately I use past experiences and beliefs to determine my concept of reality. Then, based on my idea of reality, I determine if a statement is either true or false. "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true" (Solomon p 268) This was Aristotle 's belief in Metaphysics and seems to be a very clear-cut statement on how to determine truth. Either a statement is true or false. The law of contradiction says that a statement and its denial cannot both be true. (Solomon p.266) This reinforces the belief that a statement cannot be true and false at the same time. As Aristotle also said in Metaphysics "It is impossible for the same man to suppose at the same time that the same thing is and is not." (Solomon p 266) This however, as some still argue, does not solve the problem that what may true to one, may be false to another. If reality is based on my experiences, then having different experiences can cause different perceptions of reality. The argument of whom or what would determine the final truth is well beyond my qualifications. This can cause a contradiction of truth. This contradiction, based on an individual 's idea of reality, is another concept that I am able to only understand and take a position. I do not have the final answers to these arguments but I do have a perspective. An individual 's concept of reality is unique to that individual. Based on ones ' experiences comes that person 's concept of reality. Just because someone 's experiences cause them to believe one truth, doesn 't mean they are wrong if I believe another truth. This idea of reality is what causes philosophers to discuss different theories of truth and their credibility 's on many different levels. These extreme cases and abstract ideas is where the correspondence theory draws in the critics. I feel that some of these arguments, though valid, are applicable to any theory. The first argument of this theory roots from the name itself. This argument of the correspondence theory states that "there is no such thing as a statement or belief that by itself is capable of corresponding to anything." (Solomon p268) This means that mainly because our words have different meanings in different languages there is not one single statement that can "correspond" to anything. I feel that this is a weak argument in that it would mean that nothing can be true. There are many different languages and there is no single word I know of that is universal. This argument could be applied to any theory of truth. If what I say is not true to everyone, then it is false. That seems to be the basis of this argument and because of this belief nothing could be true. To me that is an outrageous and un-realistic argument. The next point critics of the correspondence theory make is that there in some cases may be physical implications with verifying correspondence. One example of this for me may be my diabetes. If I say "my blood sugar is low" the only way to verify if that is true is through the use of my glucose meter. Without the correct equipment there is no way to tell if that statement is true. (At least until I 'm in a coma!). To me this still seems to have a simple solution; the truth isn 't known until it can be verified. I truly do not know if my blood sugar is low until I have tested it. This may cause me to have to rely on another person 's statement but then I can only form an opinion. If I cannot verify the truth physically then I do not know if it is true. This brings up the next argument. The final point I will talk about is that of abstract ideas. Some people will argue that the correspondence theory does not "work" for abstract ideas, such as love and feelings. These are difficult to verify since they are mostly feelings. There is no concrete source to "match" them up with. To find the truth in these areas is very difficult with any theory of truth. The best answer I have to counter this objection is that the truth to these abstract ideas is unique to every individual and is really more of an opinion. If someone says "I am hungry" that is really more of an opinion than a statement. Therefore these claims cannot be either true or false, they are a feeling and that is not for me to judge as truth or not. This leads me to conclude that the correspondence theory is the most adequate theory for determining truth. As long as a belief or statement corresponds with my perception of reality then it is the truth. Though there are valid arguments against this theory I feel that they are a stretch and can be argued against any theory of truth.

Bibliography

Solomon, Robert, Introducing Philosophy, 8th edition, (Oxford University Press, NY 2005) pp266-279

Bibliography: Solomon, Robert, Introducing Philosophy, 8th edition, (Oxford University Press, NY 2005) pp266-279