There are many theories on the significance of truth. and with those theories come beliefs and inquiries as to why one is more equal than the others. The theory that I will discourse as the most equal is the correspondence theory. Honestly. I don’t possess the capablenesss to to the full find the most sufficient theory of truth. I do. nevertheless. have empirical grounds and solid logical thinking to back up the correspondence theory. There are many valid statements and inquiries of this theory that I am non qualified to wholly rebut.
For the interest of this essay I am merely able to go on this age old treatment. non to reason with an exact theory of truth to follow. First I will present the basic thoughts of the correspondence theory and so I will demo why I support these thoughts. Then I will show what some other philosophers have said in respects to the correspondence theory and how I interpret these statements. To stop. I will discourse the basic statements against the correspondence theory. and demo grounds as to why these statements are applicable to any theory.
The construct of the correspondence theory says that a statement is true merely if the facts given match up with world. ( Solomon p. 268 ) This can be a really simple attack to finding the truth. The basic thought is that if. based on my apprehension of world. the statement given lucifers that world so the statement is true. If the statement does non match to reality so it is false. A statement is a sentence that can be determined to be true or false but non both at the same clip. So finally I use past experiences and beliefs to find my construct of world.
Then. based on my thought of world. I determine if a statement is either true or false. “To say of what is that it is non. or of what is non that it is. is false. while to state of what is that it is. or of what is non that it is non. is true” ( Solomon p 268 ) This was Aristotle’s belief in Metaphysics and seems to be a really distinct statement on how to find truth. Either a statement is true or false. The jurisprudence of contradiction says that a statement and its denial can non both be true. ( Solomon p. 266 ) This reinforces the belief that a statement can non be true and false at the same clip.
As Aristotle besides said in Metaphysics “It is impossible for the same adult male to say at the same clip that the same thing is and is non. ” ( Solomon p 266 ) This nevertheless. as some still argue. does non work out the job that what may true to one. may be false to another. If world is based on my experiences. so holding different experiences can do different perceptual experiences of world. The statement of whom or what would find the concluding truth is good beyond my makings. This can do a contradiction of truth.
This contradiction. based on an individual’s thought of world. is another construct that I am able to merely understand and take a place. I do non hold the concluding replies to these statements but I do hold a position. An individual’s construct of world is alone to that person. Based on ones’ experiences comes that person’s construct of world. Just because someone’s experiences cause them to believe one truth. doesn’t mean they are incorrect if I believe another truth. This thought of world is what causes philosophers to discourse different theories of truth and their credibility’s on many different degrees.
These utmost instances and abstract thoughts is where the correspondence theory draws in the critics. I feel that some of these statements. though valid. are applicable to any theory. The first statement of this theory roots from the name itself. This statement of the correspondence theory provinces that “there is no such thing as a statement or belief that by itself is capable of matching to anything. ” ( Solomon p268 ) This means that chiefly because our words have different significances in different linguistic communications there is non one individual statement that can “correspond” to anything.
I feel that this is a weak statement in that it would intend that nil can be true. There are many different linguistic communications and there is no individual word I know of that is cosmopolitan. This statement could be applied to any theory of truth. If what I say is non true to everyone. so it is false. That seems to be the footing of this statement and because of this belief nil could be true. To me that is an hideous and un-realistic statement. The following point critics of the correspondence theory brand is that there in some instances may be physical deductions with verifying correspondence. One illustration of this for me may be my diabetes.
If I say “my blood sugar is low” the lone manner to verify if that is true is through the usage of my glucose metre. Without the right equipment there is no manner to state if that statement is true. ( At least until I’m in a coma! ) . To me this still seems to hold a simple solution ; the truth isn’t known until it can be verified. I genuinely do non cognize if my blood sugar is low until I have tested it. This may do me to hold to trust on another person’s statement but so I can merely organize an sentiment. If I can non verify the truth physically so I do non cognize if it is true. This brings up the following statement.
The concluding point I will speak about is that of abstract thoughts. Some people will reason that the correspondence theory does non “work” for abstract thoughts. such as love and feelings. These are hard to verify since they are largely feelings. There is no concrete beginning to “match” them up with. To happen the truth in these countries is really hard with any theory of truth. The best reply I have to counter this expostulation is that the truth to these abstract thoughts is alone to every person and is truly more of an sentiment. If person says “I am hungry” that is truly more of an sentiment than a statement.
Therefore these claims can non be either true or false. they are a feeling and that is non for me to judge as truth or non. This leads me to reason that the correspondence theory is the most equal theory for finding truth. Equally long as a belief or statement corresponds with my perceptual experience of world so it is the truth. Though there are valid statements 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.