There was never any systematic attempt at justification, and without this any claim to truth is seriously and usually fatally flawed. The realm of Truth may contain those arising from mystical convictions, which are more difficult to justify than those based on observations.
Although attempts are made to pragmatically justify religious beliefs, the many competing claims leave us in confusion. So, Truth is the realm populated by well-justified beliefs. To a certain extent truth is subjective, although a belief gains greater currency by its wider acknowledgment.
Truth is not constant. Some beliefs which were held to be true are now considered false, and some for which truth is now claimed may be deemed false in the future, and vice versa. Truth is good for helping us decide how to act, because it serves as a standard for making some sort of sense of a world populated also by half-truths and untruths. Our ancestors did themselves and us a great favour when they began using noises to communicate. We could use it to describe the world as we found it; but we could also use it to create things, such as boundaries and private property.
As John Searle has argued, the vast structure of our social world, including our laws, businesses, politics, economics and entertainments, has been built out of language. Telling the truth is just one of the uses of language. Telling the truth is complicated by the fact that we live in a hybrid world, partly natural, partly invented.
Another complication is that we ourselves are physical objects which can be described using objective terms, but we are also social beings, in roles, relationships and structures which are all man-made. Classifications are a key component of language.
Some classifications are givens in nature the periodic table, biological taxonomy, physical laws while others are inventions social roles, types uses of furniture, parts of speech. In their search for truth the natural sciences seek to discover natural classifications, as distinct from social inventions.
True descriptions are like maps. Some descriptions map objective reality, as the natural sciences do, which is like a map of physical contours. Other descriptions map our socially-constructed world, as journalists, historians, novelists and theologians do, like a map showing political borders. We have made great progress since our ancestors first grunted at each other.
I would like to say that truth exists outside of us, for all to see. Unfortunately, humans can be stubborn, and so the actual pinning down of what a truth is is more complicated. Society plays host to two types of truths; subjective truth and objective truth. Objective truth is discovered by a search which is critical of our experiences until sufficient evidence has been gathered. Our preference as a society is, I believe, revealed through our use of language.
It is true from our individual standpoint, but it is not a truth in the objective sense. The truth, in an objective sense, is that we live on a planet which spins on its axis and it orbits the Sun.
Based on our use of language in the majority of situations, an alien may then well judge us to be very ignorant, and that our truth is self-serving. Everyone knows perfectly well what truth is — everyone except Pontius Pilate and philosophers. Truth is the quality of being true, and being true is what some statements are.
That is to say, truth is a quality of the propositions which underlie correctly-used statements. What does that mean? Nonetheless, it is perfectly natural to say that a statement itself is true; people who think this would say that the above statement, as uttered by the man who thinks Gordon Brown is PM, is false even though what he meant by it is true.
However, to generalise, it is not really the statement itself that is true or false , but what is meant by it. I dilute my solution, place it into a cuvette, and take a reading with the spectrophotometer: 0. I repeat the procedure once more and get 0. From this I get the average of 0. The variation is probably based upon tiny inconsistencies in how I am handling the equipment, so three readings should be sufficient for my purposes.
The speaker — through his or her agreeing with it, endorsing it, praising it, accepting it, or perhaps conceding it — is licensing our adoption of the belief in the proposition. The case may be likened somewhat to that of promising. Critics of the Performative Theory charge that it requires too radical a revision in our logic.
Advocates of the Correspondence Theory and the Semantic Theory have argued that a proposition need not be known in order to be true. Truth, they say, arises out of a relationship between a proposition and the way the world is. No one need know that that relationship holds, nor — for that matter — need there even be any conscious or language-using creatures for that relationship to obtain. In short, truth is an objective feature of a proposition, not a subjective one.
For a true proposition to be known, it must at the very least be a justified belief. Justification, unlike truth itself, requires a special relationship among propositions. For a proposition to be justified it must, at the very least, cohere with other propositions that one has adopted. On this account, coherence among propositions plays a critical role in the theory of knowledge.
Nevertheless it plays no role in a theory of truth, according to advocates of the Correspondence and Semantic Theories of Truth. Finally, should coherence — which plays such a central role in theories of knowledge — be regarded as an objective relationship or as a subjective one? Not surprisingly, theorists have answered this latter question in divergent ways. But the pursuit of that issue takes one beyond the theories of truth.
However, it would be fascinating if we could discover a way to tell, for any proposition, whether it is true. Perhaps some machine could do this, philosophers have speculated.
For any formal language, we know in principle how to generate all the sentences of that language. If we were to build a machine that produces one by one all the many sentences, then eventually all those that express truths would be produced. Unfortunately, along with them, we would also generate all those that express false propositions. We also know how to build a machine that will generate only sentences that express truths. However, to generate all and only those sentences that express truths is quite another matter.
Leibniz dreamed of achieving this goal. By mechanizing deductive reasoning he hoped to build a machine that would generate all and only truths. Some progress on the general problem of capturing all and only those sentences which express true propositions can be made by limiting the focus to a specific domain.
For instance, perhaps we can find some procedure that will produce all and only the truths of arithmetic, or of chemistry, or of Egyptian political history. If we know the universal and probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics, then some philosophers have argued we thereby indirectly are in a position to know the more specific scientific laws about chemical bonding.
Significant progress was made in the early twentieth century on the problem of axiomatizing arithmetic and other areas of mathematics. In the s, David Hilbert hoped to represent the sentences of arithmetic very precisely in a formal language, then to generate all and only the theorems of arithmetic from uncontroversial axioms, and thereby to show that all true propositions of arithmetic can in principle be proved as theorems. This would put the concept of truth in arithmetic on a very solid basis.
Thus the concept of truth transcends the concept of proof in classical formal languages. This is a remarkable, precise insight into the nature of truth. A very great many linguistic devices count as definitions. These devices include providing a synonym, offering examples, pointing at objects that satisfy the term being defined, using the term in sentences, contrasting it with opposites, and contrasting it with terms with which it is often confused.
For further reading, see Definitions, Dictionaries, and Meanings. However, modern theories about definition have not been especially recognized, let alone adopted, outside of certain academic and specialist circles. Many persons persist with the earlier, naive, view that the role of a definition is only to offer a synonym for the term to be defined. The definition would allow for a line of reasoning that produced the Liar Paradox recall above and thus would lead us into self contradiction.
That result shows that we do not have a coherent concept of truth for a language within that language. Some of our beliefs about truth, and about related concepts that are used in the argument to the contradiction, must be rejected, even though they might seem to be intuitively acceptable. There is no reason to believe that paradox is to be avoided by rejecting formal languages in favor of natural languages.
The Liar Paradox first appeared in natural languages. That is, they try to remove vagueness and be precise about the ramifications of their solutions, usually by showing how they work in a formal language that has the essential features of our natural language.
The principal solutions agree that — to resolve a paradox — we must go back and systematically reform or clarify some of our original beliefs. However, to be acceptable, the solution must be presented systematically and be backed up by an argument about the general character of our language. In short, there must be both systematic evasion and systematic explanation. The later Wittgenstein did not agree. He rejected the systematic approach and elevated the need to preserve ordinary language, and our intuitions about it, over the need to create a coherent and consistent semantical theory.
Except in special cases, most scientific researchers would agree that their results are only approximately true. Similarly, scientific theories are designed to fit the world. Scientists should not aim to create true theories; they should aim to construct theories whose models are representations of the world.
Bradley Dowden Email: dowden csus. Norman Swartz Email: swartz sfu. Truth Philosophers are interested in a constellation of issues involving the concept of truth.
Whichever theory of truth is advanced to settle the principal issue, there are a number of additional issues to be addressed: Can claims about the future be true now? Can there be some algorithm for finding truth — some recipe or procedure for deciding, for any claim in the system of, say, arithmetic, whether the claim is true? To what extent do theories of truth avoid paradox? Is the goal of scientific research to achieve truth?
Can a Theory of Truth Avoid Paradox? References and Further Reading 1. What Sorts of Things are True or False? There are many candidates for the sorts of things that can bear truth-values: statements sentence-tokens sentence-types propositions theories facts assertions utterances beliefs opinions doctrines etc. Ontological Issues What sorts of things are these candidates? These three English sentence-tokens are all of the same sentence-type: Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun.
Saturn is the sixth planet from the Sun. Might sentence- tokens be the bearers of truth-values? Constraints on Truth and Falsehood There are two commonly accepted constraints on truth and falsehood: Every proposition is true or false. Which Sentences Express Propositions? Problem Cases But do all declarative sentences express propositions?
Predictions of future events What about declarative sentences that refer to events in the future? So, the CEO should be awakened. In other words, for any proposition p, p is true if and only if p corresponds to a fact. For example all of the following propositions are contingent : Snow is white. Snow is purple. Canada belongs to the U. It is false that Canada belongs to the U. Even under those conditions, the truth-values of the following noncontingent propositions will remain unchanged: Truths Falsehoods Snow is white or it is false that snow is white.
Snow is white and it is false that snow is white. All squares are rectangles. Not all squares are rectangles. To see how one can argue that the Semantic Theory of Truth can be used to explicate the truth of noncontingent propositions, consider the following series of propositions, the first four of which are contingent, the fifth of which is noncontingent: There are fewer than seven bumblebees or more than ten.
There are fewer than eight bumblebees or more than ten. Truth for singular sentences, consisting of a name and an arbitrarily complex predicate, is defined thus: A singular sentence is true iff the object denoted by the name satisfies the predicate. Logical machinery provided by Tarski can be used to turn this simplified sketch into a more general definition of truth—a definition that handles sentences containing relational predicates and quantifiers and covers molecular sentences as well.
Popper ; Field , ; Kirkham , chaps. Subatomism constitutes a return to broadly object-based correspondence. Since it promises to avoid facts and all similarly articulated, sentence-like slices of reality, correspondence theorists who take seriously objection 3. F2 favor this approach: not even elementary truthbearers are assigned any matching truthmakers.
The correspondence relation itself has given way to two semantic relations between constituents of truthbearers and objects: reference or denotation and satisfaction—relations central to any semantic theory. Some advocates envision causal accounts of reference and satisfaction cf. Field ; Devitt , ; Schmitt ; Kirkham , chaps. It turns out that relational predicates require talk of satisfaction by ordered sequences of objects.
Problems: a The subatomistic approach accounts for the truth-values of molecular truthbearers in the same way as the atomistic approach; consequently, molecular truthbearers that are not truth-functional still pose the same problems as in atomism.
Field Problems for both versions of modified correspondence theories: a It is not known whether an entirely general recursive definition of truth, one that covers all truthbearers, can be made available. This depends on unresolved issues concerning the extent to which truthbearers are amenable to the kind of structural analyses that are presupposed by the recursive clauses. The more an account of truth wants to exploit the internal structure of truthbearers, the more it will be hostage to the limited availability of appropriate structural analyses of the relevant truthbearers.
After all, the recursive clauses rely heavily on what appears to be the logico-syntactic structure of truthbearers, and it is unclear whether anything but sentences can plausibly be said to possess that kind of structure. But the thesis that sentences of any sort are to be regarded as the primary truthbearers is contentious. Whether propositions can meaningfully be said to have an analogous albeit non-linguistic structure is under debate cf.
Russell , King To avoid circularity, a modified correspondence theory be it atomic or subatomic must hold that the logical connectives can be understood without reference to correspondence truth. Definitions like 1 and 2 from Section 3 assume, naturally, that truthbearers are true because they, the truthbearers themselves, correspond to facts. There are however views that reject this natural assumption.
They propose to account for the truth of truthbearers of certain kinds, propositions, not by way of their correspondence to facts, but by way of the correspondence to facts of other items, the ones that have propositions as their contents. Consider the state of believing that p or the activity of judging that p. The state the activity is not, strictly speaking, true or false; rather, what is true or false is its content, the proposition that p.
Nevertheless, on the present view, it is the state of believing that p that corresponds or fails to correspond to a fact. Such a modification of fact-based correspondence can be found in Moore , p.
It can be adapted to atomistic Armstrong and subatomistic views, and to views on which sentences of the language of thought are the primary bearers of truth and falsehood.
Most advocates of propositions as primary bearers of truth and falsehood will regard this as a serious weakness, holding that there are very many true and false propositions that are not believed, or even entertained, by anyone. Armstrong combines the view with an instrumentalist attitude towards propositions, on which propositions are mere abstractions from mental states and should not be taken seriously, ontologically speaking.
Against the traditional competitors —coherentist, pragmatist, and verificationist and other epistemic theories of truth—correspondence theorists raise two main sorts of objections. First , such accounts tend to lead into relativism. Take, e. Second , the accounts tend to lead into some form of idealism or anti-realism, e. Cases of this sort are frequently cited as counterexamples to coherentist accounts of truth. Dedicated coherentists tend to reject such counterexamples, insisting that they are not possible after all.
This offers a bare outline of the overall shape the debates tend to take. For more on the correspondence theory vs. Walker is a book-lenght discussion of coherence theories of truth. See also the entries on pragmatism , relativism , the coherence theory of truth , in this encyclopedia. The correspondence theory is sometimes accused of overreaching itself: it does apply, so the objection goes, to truths from some domains of discourse, e.
Alethic pluralism grows out of this objection, maintaining that truth is constituted by different properties for true propositions from different domains of discourse: by correspondence to fact for true propositions from the domain of scientific or everyday discourse about physical things; by some epistemic property, such as coherence or superassertibility, for true propositions from the domain of ethical and aesthetic discourse, and maybe by still other properties for other domains of discourse.
Truth itself is not to be identified with any of its realizing properties. Though it contains the correspondence theory as one ingredient, alethic pluralism is nevertheless a genuine competitor, for it rejects the thesis that truth is correspondence to reality. Moreover, it equally contains competitors of the correspondence theory as further ingredients.
Alethic pluralism in its contemporary form is a relatively young position. It was inaugurated by Crispin Wright ; see also and was later developed into a somewhat different form by Lynch Critical discussion is still at a relatively nascent stage but see Vision , chap. It will likely focus on two main problem areas. First , it seems difficult to sort propositions into distinct kinds according to the subject matter they are about.
What are they about? Intuitively, their subject matter is mixed, belonging to the physical domain, the biological domain, and the domain of ethical discourse. It is hard to see how pluralism can account for the truth of such mixed propositions, belonging to more than one domain of discourse: What will be the realizing property? Lynch proposes to construe truth as a functional property , defined in terms of a complex functional role which is given by the conjunction of the platitudes somewhat analogous to the way in which functionalists in the philosophy of mind construe mental states as functional states, specified in terms of their functional roles—though in their case the relevant functional roles are causal roles, which is not a feasible option when it comes to the truth-role.
Here the main issue will be to determine a whether such an account really works, when the technical details are laid out, and b whether it is plausible to claim that properties as different as correspondence to a fact, on the one hand, and coherence or superassertibilty, on the other, can be said to play one and the same role—a claim that seems required by the thesis that these different properties all realize the same property, being true.
For more on pluralism, see e. This non-traditional competitor of the correspondence theory threatens to collapse the correspondence relation into identity. See Moore ; and Dodd for a book-length defense of this theory and discussion contrasting it with the correspondence theory; and see the entry the identity theory of truth: in this encyclopedia. In response, a correspondence theorist will point out: a The identity theory is defensible only for propositions as truthbearers, and only for propositions construed in a certain way, namely as having objects and properties as constituents rather than ideas or concepts of objects and properties; that is, for Russellian propositions.
Hence, there will be ample room and need for correspondence accounts of truth for other types of truthbearers, including propositions, if they are construed as constituted, partly or wholly, of concepts of objects and properties. The assumption can be questioned. That-clauses can be understood as ambiguous names, sometimes denoting propositions and sometimes denoting facts.
David Deflationists maintain that correspondence theories need to be deflated; that their central notions, correspondence and fact and their relatives , play no legitimate role in an adequate account of truth and can be excised without loss.
A correspondence-type formulation like. Quine , p. Correspondence theorists protest that 6 cannot lead to anything deserving to be regarded as an account of truth. Moreover, no genuine generalizations about truth can be accounted for on the basis of 7. Correspondence definitions, on the other hand, do yield genuine generalizations about truth. The genuine article, 1 or 2 , is not as easily deflated as the impostor 5.
Correspondence theorists tend to regard this as a minimal requirement. See also the entry the deflationary theory of truth in this encyclopedia. This approach centers on the truthmaker or truthmaking principle : Every truth has a truthmaker; or alternatively: For every truth there is something that makes it true. The principle is usually understood as an expression of a realist attitude, emphasizing the crucial contribution the world makes to the truth of a proposition.
Advocates tend to treat truthmaker theory primarily as a guide to ontology, asking: To entities of what ontological categories are we committed as truthmakers of the propositions we accept as true? Most advocates maintain that propositions of different logical types can be made true by items from different ontological categories: e.
This is claimed as a significant improvement over traditional correspondence theories which are understood—correctly in most but by no means all cases—to be committed to all truthmakers belonging to a single ontological category albeit disagreeing about which category that is.
All advocates of truthmaker theory maintain that the truthmaking relation is not one-one but many-many: some truths are made true by more than one truthmaker; some truthmakers make true more than one truth.
This is also claimed as a significant improvement over traditional correspondence theories which are often portrayed as committed to correspondence being a one-one relation. This portrayal is only partly justified. While it is fairly easy to find real-life correspondence theorists committing themselves to the view that each truth corresponds to exactly one fact at least by implication, talking about the corresponding fact , it is difficult to find real-life correspondence theorists committing themselves to the view that only one truth can correspond to a given fact but see Moore , p.
A truthmaker theory may be presented as a competitor to the correspondence theory or as a version of the correspondence theory. Some advocates would agree with Dummett , p. Other advocates would follow Armstrong who tends to present his truthmaker theory as a liberal form of correspondence theory; indeed, he seems committed to the view that the truth of a contingent elementary proposition consists in its correspondence with some atomic fact cf.
Armstrong ; , pp. Logical atomists, such as Russell and Wittgenstein , will hold that the truth or falsehood of every truth-value bearer can be explained in terms of can be derived from logical relations between truth-value bearers, by way of the recursive clauses, together with the base clauses, i. This recursive strategy could be pursued with the aim to reject the truthmaker principle : not all truths have truthmakers, only elementary truths have truthmakers here understood as corresponding atomic facts.
There is one straightforward difference between truthmaker theory and most correspondence theories. Modified correspondence theories also aim at providing a definition of truth, though in their case the definition will be considerably more complex, owing to the recursive character of the account. Truthmaker theory, on the other hand, centers on the truthmaker principle : For every truth there is something that makes it true. There is a growing body of literature on truthmaker theory; see for example: Russell ; Mullligan, Simons, and Smith ; Fox ; Armstrong , ; Merricks ; and the essays in Beebe and Dodd ; Monnoyer ; and in Lowe and Rami See also the entry on truthmakers in this encyclopedia.
We have:. The argument has been criticized repeatedly. Critics point to the two questionable assumptions on which it relies, i and ii. It is far from obvious why a correspondence theorist should be tempted by either one of them. Opposition to assumption i rests on the view that expressibility by logically equivalent sentences may be a necessary, but is not a sufficient condition for fact identity.
Opposition to assumption ii rests on the observation that the alleged singular terms used in the argument are definite descriptions : their status as genuine singular terms is in doubt, and it is well-known that they behave rather differently than proper names for which assumption ii is probably valid cf.
The objection that may well have been the most effective in causing discontent with the correspondence theory is based on an epistemological concern. In a nutshell, the objection is that a correspondence theory of truth must inevitably lead into skepticism about the external world, because the required correspondence between our thoughts and reality is not ascertainable.
It is typically pointed out that we cannot step outside our own minds to compare our thoughts with mind-independent reality. Yet—so the objection continues—on the correspondence theory of truth, this is precisely what we would have to do to gain knowledge. We would have to access reality as it is in itself, independently of our cognition, and determine whether our thoughts correspond to it.
Since this is impossible, since all our access to the world is mediated by our cognition, the correspondence theory makes knowledge impossible cf. Kant , intro vii. Assuming that the resulting skepticism is unacceptable, the correspondence theory has to be rejected, and some other account of truth, an epistemic anti-realist account of some sort, has to be put in its place cf.
This type of objection brings up a host of issues in epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and general metaphysics. All that can be done here is to hint at a few pertinent points cf. Searle , chap. There are two assumptions implicit in this line of reasoning, both of them debatable.
The assumption may rest on confusing requirements for knowing x with requirements for knowing that one knows x. This is highly implausible. By the same standard it would follow that no one who does not know that water is H 2 O can know that the Nile contains water—which would mean, of course, that until fairly recently nobody knew that the Nile contained water and that, until fairly recently, nobody knew that there were stars in the sky, whales in the sea, or that the sun gives light.
Similarly, as far as knowing that x is true is concerned, the correspondence theory does not entail that we have to know that a belief corresponds to a fact in order to know that it is true, or that our method of finding out whether a belief is true has to involve a strategy of actually comparing a belief with a fact—although the theory does of course entail that one obtains knowledge only if one obtains a belief that corresponds to a fact.
One might also wonder whether its competitors actually enjoy any significant advantage over the correspondence theory, once they are held to the standards set up by this sort of objection. Stove However, the connection between correspondence theories of truth and the metaphysical realism vs.
On the one hand, deflationists and identity theorists can be, and typically are, metaphysical realists while rejecting the correspondence theory. On the other hand, advocates of a correspondence theory can, in principle, be metaphysical idealists e.
McTaggart or anti-realists, for one might advocate a correspondence theory while maintaining, at the same time, a that all facts are constituted by mind or b that what facts there are depends somehow on what we believe or are capable of believing, or c that the correspondence relation between true propositions and facts depends somehow on what we believe or are capable of believing claiming that the correspondence relation between true beliefs or true sentences and facts depends on what we believe can hardly count as a commitment to anti-realism.
Keeping this point in mind, one can nevertheless acknowledge that advocacy of a correspondence theory of truth comes much more naturally when combined with a metaphysically realist stance and usually signals commitment to such a stance. History of the Correspondence Theory 1. Truthbearers, Truthmakers, Truth 2. Simple Versions of the Correspondence Theory 4. Arguments for the Correspondence Theory 5. Objections to the Correspondence Theory 6.
Correspondence as Isomorphism 7. Modified Versions of the Correspondence Theory 7. The Correspondence Theory and Its Competitors 8. More Objections to the Correspondence Theory 9. An object-based definition of truth might look like this: A judgment is true if and only if its predicate corresponds to its object i. It is intended to refer to bearers of truth or falsehood truth-value-bearers , or alternatively, to things of which it makes sense to ask whether they are true or false, thus allowing for the possibility that some of them might be neither.
One distinguishes between secondary and primary truthbearers. Secondary truthbearers are those whose truth-values truth or falsehood are derived from the truth-values of primary truthbearers, whose truth-values are not derived from any other truthbearers. This is, however, not a brute ambiguity, since the secondary meanings are supposed to be derived, i.
For example, one might hold that propositions are true or false in the primary sense, whereas sentences are true or false in a secondary sense, insofar as they express propositions that are true or false in the primary sense.
It is often unproblematic to advocate one theory of truth for bearers of one kind and another theory for bearers of a different kind e. Different theories of truth applied to bearers of different kinds do not automatically compete. The standard segregation of truth theories into competing camps found in textbooks, handbooks, and dictionaries proceeds under the assumption—really a pretense—that they are intended for primary truthbearers of the same kind.
Confusingly, there is little agreement as to which entities are properly taken to be primary truthbearers. Nowadays, the main contenders are public language sentences, sentences of the language of thought sentential mental representations , and propositions. Yet it's difficult to define because as soon as you think you have it pinned down, some case or counterexample immediately shows deficiencies. Ironically, every definition of truth that philosophers have developed falls prey to the question, "Is it true?
Simply, we can define truth as: a statement about the way the world actually is. We'll look at various theories below that philosophers have considered but that's an adequate rough-and-ready definition to get us started. Coming up with a definition of truth falls under the discipline of epistemology or the study of knowledge though some philosophers categorize it as a study in metaphysics--the study of what is real.
In this essay, we'll look at some reasons why defining truth can be challenging. I'll then lay out some terms and concepts that will help us get a better handle on understanding what truth is. Next, we'll look at three main views of truth. The coherence theory describes truth in terms of interconnected belief. A belief is true if it is consistent with other beliefs we have. The correspondence theory describes truth in terms of a relation concepts or propositions have to the actual world.
Finally postmodernism lays out a view of truth in terms of individual perspectives and community agreement. While this essay does not focus on practical issues like why a view of truth is important, I'll say a few words about that idea at the end and provide more resources for further reading.
I stated above that defining truth can be challenging. You might claim this is what the apple is. Put another way, you've made truth claims about the apple and seemingly made statements about real properties of the apple.
But immediate problems arise. Let's suppose your friend is color blind this is unknown to you or her and when she looks at the apple, she says that the apple is a dull greenish color. She also makes a truth claim about the color of the apple but it's different than your truth claim. What color is the apple? Well, you might respond, that's an easy problem to solve.
It's actually red because we've stipulated that your friend has an anomaly in her truth-gathering equipment vision and even though we may not know she has it, the fact that she does means her view of reality is incorrect. We can make this objection even stronger by asking how we know that we all aren't in fact color blind in a way we don't understand and apples really aren't red after all. Again, the response might be that that this is a knowledge problem, not a truth problem.
No one knows what the truth is and so it plays no role in our epistemology. The challenge is that our view of truth is very closely tied to our perspective on what is true. This means that in the end, we may be able to come up with a reasonable definition of truth, but if we decide that no one can get to what is true that is, know truth , what good is the definition?
Even more problematic is that our perspective will even influence our ability to come up with a definition! These are no small concerns and we'll explore some responses below.
Before we get to definitions of truth, we need to define some terms used in those definitions which will make things a little easier to digest.
Epistemologists people who study truth, belief and knowledge use the following concepts as the framework for their study of truth. A common technical definition of a proposition credited to Peter van Inwagen is "a non-linguistic bearer of truth value. Propositions are different than sentences. Sentences are symbolic, linguistic representations of propositions.
Okay, that's all very technical. What does it mean? Let's take the sentence, "The moon has craters. If we're going to get philosophical about it, we could describe its properties as having four words and 17 letters, it's in the English language written in 11 point font and it's black.
I could write the same sentence like this:. This sentence has different properties from the first one above. This one still has the same number of words and letters and it's in English. But it is in 18 point font and is written in blue. It's written in 11 point font and is black but it's Spanish. What do all three sentences have in common? Well, they all express the same idea or meaning and we could say the same "truth.
Notice that the symbols themselves are neither true nor false. The meaning the sentences represent is either true or false. Sentences are symbolic representations of something else—propositions. The common property true of all sentences that express the same truth is what philosophers call the propositional content of the sentences or "the proposition.
They bear truth because they are the things that are true or false. This is what allows them to be expressed or "exemplified" in a variety of different symbolic systems like language-based sentences.
When it comes to understanding truth, many philosophers believe propositions are at the center. Beliefs are things at least people have. They don't exist outside the mind. Some philosophers say beliefs are "dispositional. So a belief, simply, is a proposition that a person accepts as representing the way the world actually is. Beliefs can be about false propositions and thus be "wrong" because the person accepts them as true. This is a critical distinction.
0コメント