Each theory’s ramifications in many areas, such as science, ethics, or daily life, will also be examined along with pertinent examples. Is it correct to believe that truth must function, be helpful to people, and aid in achieving outcomes that make people happy? Is it conceivable for the truth to be some agreement between a belief and a fact of actual life? Is it also feasible for the truth to cohere with other truths? This essay aims to clearly understand each theory of truth, its advantages and disadvantages, and how it approaches the essence of truth and its place in human knowledge. Recognizing the substance of truth and its significance for individuals has been a long-standing challenge. Both of these truth theories are necessary to understand the train of thought when a person gives off truth.It is common to hear the statement, “Everyone has their own truth.” Individuals are free to select a religion, customs, and culture and create truths that suit their choices. This truth theory may seem more prevalent in daily life, but it actually makes the Correspondence Theory more necessary and in turn becomes a yin and yang situation. Staying out of the street to avoid the danger of being run over follows the Coherence Theory moreso than the Correspondence Although people may have not experienced a scenario for themselves, they trust the experience of others going through it and use that set of beliefs to keep themselves intact. A ‘series (or set) of beliefs put in motion at any given time’ mentioned within the lecture structure how the Coherence Theory challenges the Correspondence Theory. The Chapter 6 lectures provide an easier way of seeing how the Coherence Theory works in the real world. The Coherence Theory creates infintessimal pathways across communication and truth as it poses more questions than answers in the end. When one tells another that the sky is blue, they are telling the truth in accordance to the Correspondence Theory and the Coherence Theory, but the Coherence Theory recognizes that all parts of this truth are still only beliefs. The preceeding principle challenges the Correspondence Theory of truth as it states truth, at its core, is still (subjective) and only belief. Instead, truth consists of coherence between a belief and other beliefs” (Velasquez, p. “Truth is not correspondence between a belief and a fact in the real world. The Correspondence Theory depends entirely upon a fact being true (such as water’s freezing levels), but what does one use to correspond that fact to? In essence, the Correspondence Theory uses only one branch of (relative) truth and that may lead to more questions and less conclusive answers. How can one determine a proposition to be true if the initial truth is yet another proposition? This notion may seem a bit convoluted, but there is a cyclic nature to philosophy that leads us back to the intial question we asked in the first place. The meaning behind this statement challenges the whole foundation of the Correspondence Theory. “To which fact is a true proposition supposed to correspond?” (Velasquez, p. There are challenges to the Correspondence Theory as scaling truth goes far beyond simple comparisons. In relation to the prior example, the teacher was truthful in their claims as real world evidence corresponds with the information communicated to the student. When people pass along information as fact, the only way to test that supposed fact’s truthfulness is by seeing how that information relates to the real, material universe. If a student is told by their teacher that water freezes at below 32 degrees celsius, that information becomes factual truth as in reality, water does turn to ice at below 32 degrees celsius. The Correspondence Theory in actuality is how spoken word, and said truth conforms to reality.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |