There are many theories on the meaning of truth, and with those theories come beliefs and questions as to why one is more adequate than the others. The theory that I will discuss as the most adequate is the correspondence theory. Honestly, I don't possess the capabilities to fully determine the most sufficient theory of truth. I do, however, have empirical evidence and solid reasoning to support the correspondence theory. There are many valid arguments and questions of this theory that I am not qualified to completely refute. For the sake of this essay I am only able to continue this age old discussion, not to conclude with an exact theory of truth to follow.
First I will introduce the basic ideas of the correspondence theory and then I will show why I support these ideas. Then I will present what some other philosophers have said in regards to the correspondence theory and how I interpret these statements. To end, I will discuss the basic arguments against the correspondence theory, and show reasons as to why these arguments are applicable to any theory.
The concept of the correspondence theory says that a statement is true only if the facts given match up with reality. (Solomon p.268) This can be a very simple approach to determining the truth. The basic idea is that if, based on my understanding of reality, the statement given matches that reality then the statement is true. If the statement does not correspond to reality then it is false. A statement is a sentence that can be determined to be true or false but not both at the same time. So ultimately I use past experiences and beliefs to determine my concept of reality. Then, based on my idea of reality, I determine if a statement is either 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 true" (Solomon p 268) This was Aristotle's belief in Metaphysics and seems to be a very clear-cut...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document