Truth

In response to a prior post, my brother pointed me to the Wikipedia page on truth and asked me what I believe is truth. This is one of the benefits of having a blog like this and putting myself out there. It encourages people to share ideas or questions that they probably wouldn't otherwise bring up.

On a recent flight (of which there have unfortunately been many), I read the Wikipedia page. I found it interesting to discover that "the term [truth] has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree ... There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute." The correspondence theory is a "class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality ... Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying 'objective reality' and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols ... [but] language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another." Coherence theory, in general, says that "truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system ... A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole." Constructivist theory holds that "that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community." Consensus theory holds that "truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group." And the pragmatic theory says that "truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice ... [and that] definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which [Peirce] accords a lower status than real definitions."

In terms of philosophers, Kierkegaard said that "objective truths for the study of subjects like math, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argue[d] that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life." And Fromm said that "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period ... different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth."

In terms of my personal view of truth, I'd say it's a combination of the correspondence theory and the coherence theory (as I understand them from reading this Wikipedia page). In terms of correspondence theory, I do believe that there is an objective reality based on physical phenomenon or occurences such as particular atoms being at particular 3-D locations at a particular time or certain frequencies being transmitted through the air at a particular time. But this reality isn't entirely objective in the sense that we have to use language or personal judgments to overlay intent or inward reality on these outward physical phenomenon. For example, I might say "I am tired" and walk away. There is an objective reality that the atoms that compose my body moved through some 3-D space instant-by-instant during that utterance and some set of audio frequencies which transmitted instant-by-instant through the air at the same time. But that is all we can say with absolute certainty about this occurrence. As an external observer (other than God), we can't know for sure the intent behind that physical occurrence (e.g., whether I am indeed tired and need to go to bed or if I am simply making an excuse to exit the situation so I can go do something more interesting). And, sometimes even as a self-observer, we don't know the subconscious intent behind our actions and run into some of the same challenges as an external observer.

In terms of the coherence theory, I've said a couple of different times that I believe that everything happens for a reason (see prior post) and that everything in that sense fits into a whole system. So, the true global significance of a single event cannot be fully understood in isolation but must be taken in the context of the larger system.

Now, if we factor in the concept of emergence (see prior post), I can integrate the correspondence theory and the coherence theory into a consolidated theory that is personally meaningful. Specifically, there is an objective reality of physical phenomenon (e.g., atoms in motion, frequencies in the air, etc) that leads to other physical phenomenon occuring from which some perceived outward reality emerges. Now, in terms of finding the truth in this outward reality, these events (along with their inward motivations and decision-making process) must be mapped into specific nodes and paths through the cosmic decision tree I referred to in my everything happens for a reason post. In this sense, understanding the truth and significance of our current reality is only possible by way of understanding the future reality it enables.

I strongly doubt this makes sense to anyone but me. But it's my blog so, at the end of the day, all that matters is that what I'm saying makes sense to me. =)