Philosophy of Truth Essay

on that point atomic number 18 umteen theories on the entertaining of truth, and with those theories come beliefs and questions as to wherefore one is more adequate than the others. The opening that I will treat as the some adequate is the residue hypothesis. Honestly, I dont possess the capabilities to fully determine the most sufficient theory of truth. I do, however, generate empirical evidence and solid reasoning to support the equipoise theory. There are many valid arguments and questions of this theory that I am non qualified to completely refute.For the sake of this essay I am only able to continue this age old discussion, not to fill up with an exact theory of truth to fol paltry. First I will demo the basic ideas of the counterpoise theory and because I will project why I support these ideas. Then I will submit what slightly other philosophers have said in regards to the correspondence theory and how I interpret these averments. To end, I will discuss th e basic arguments against the correspondence theory, and show reasons as to why these arguments are applicable to any theory.The imagination of the correspondence theory says that a asseveration is admittedly only if the facts disposed(p) match up with earthly concern. (Solomon p. 268) This john be a very bare(a) approach to determining the truth. The basic idea is that if, based on my spirit of realism, the statement given matches that reality then the statement is true. If the statement does not correspond to reality then it is nonsensical. A statement is a fourth dimension that can be determined to be true or false provided not both at the same time. So in the end I use past experiences and beliefs to determine my sentiment of reality.Then, based on my idea of reality, I determine if a statement is every 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 tr ue (Solomon p 268) This was Aristotles belief in Metaphysics and seems to be a very clear-cut statement on how to determine truth. all a statement is true or false. The law of contradiction in terms 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 too 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 unalike experiences can cause different perceptions of reality. The argument of whom or what would determine the final examination truth is well beyond my qualifications. This can cause a contradiction of truth.This contradiction, based on an individuals idea of reality, is another concept that I am able to only un derstand and take a position. I do not have the final answers to these arguments but I do have a perspective. An individuals concept of reality is unique to that individual. Based on ones experiences comes that persons concept of reality. dear because someones experiences cause them to believe one truth, doesnt 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 credibilitys on many different levels.These extreme cases and abstract ideas is where the correspondence theory draws in the critics. I tint that some of these arguments, though valid, are applicable to any theory. The set-back 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 primarily 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 cope of that is universal. This argument could be apply to any theory of truth. If what I say is not true to every(prenominal)one, 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 steep and un-realistic argument. The next point critics of the correspondence theory make is that there in some cases may be physical implications with ensureing correspondence. One event of this for me may be my diabetes.If I say my blood boodle is low the only way to verify if that is true is through the use of my glucose meter. Without the mitigate equipment there is no way to tell if that statement is true. (At least until Im in a coma ). To me this still seems to have a simple solution the tru th isnt 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 persons 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 lambaste about is that of abstract ideas. Some people will argue that the correspondence theory does not work for abstract ideas, such as extol 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 esurient that is really more of an opinion than a statement.Therefore these claims cannot be either true or false, they are a feeli ng and that is not for me to essay 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, eighth edition, (Oxford University Press, NY 2005) pp266-279.