What is truth? – Trying to Make Sense of Truth 

 

First, some ‘grammatical remarks’ about what it is not.

 

·        “There is no truth” is a self-contradiction (self-referentially incoherent), since it claims something true about the world. It is like saying “There is no language.”

 

·        “There is no truth” can also mean: except for the one I just told you. That is not self-referentially incoherent. Still, it doesn’t quite make sense. It contradicts the universal quantifier "no truth" because it admits at least one truth exists. If we wanted a less misleading statement, it would be something like this: There is only one (absolute) truth: all claims to truth other than this one are false.

 

·        This also points to something deeper: That language cannot consistently posit the absence of truth since it relies on the concept of truth to communicate, to make sense at all. Language also presupposes identity (A=A) and logical consistency (it is not the case that p is the case and p is not the case). We can’t prove truth, identity, and contradiction do not exist because we need them to prove anything at all. We cannot imagine a language in which truth (and core logical concepts) is not presupposed.

 

·        Truth is not determined individually or communally. It can’t be the case if I or my culture claim that the sun is driven around the earth in a chariot chased by a giant wolf, and you or your culture deny that in favor of the current scientific account, at least one of us is wrong. Therefore, it makes no straightforward, logical sense to say, ‘I have my truth and you have your truth’ It does make sense to say, ‘I like this’ and ‘You like that.’ But my liking the belief that the sun is being chased across the sky by a wolf and even wishing it were so doesn’t entail that the sun is being chased across the sky by a wolf.

 

·        Truth is not determined by power. Might does not make right (i.e. true). I think of Winston Smith in Orwell’s 1984 being brought to believe that 2+2=5. Not even the power of Big Brother can make that true. Even if we were conquered by Big Brother and driven to think that 2+2=5 from childhood on, it would still be false.  Galileo submitted to the church’s teachings on the solar system because of its power to harm him but that had nothing to do with truth.

 

·        Except for conceptual and logical truths such as ‘All bachelors are unmarried’ or ‘A whole is greater than its part,’ truth cannot be stipulated.  While some truths are determined by stipulation or definition, not all truths are. (e.g. Some swans are not white).

 

·        ‘Science alone determines what is true’ is false in one sense, incoherent in another.  It is not only that many everyday facts are determined apart from the scientific method. More interestingly, the proposition is self-referentially incoherent (like ‘there is no truth.’) If science alone determines what is true, then it must also determine whether that proposition is true. But that is not a possible problem for science. No scientific study could have anything to say about such a question.

 

 

Truth as an Analogical Concept

 

There are different senses of ‘truth.’

·        Truth as authenticity or genuineness – the judgment that a particular x really meets all the conceptual criteria for being a real (or a good) x. A true friend. That painting is truly beautiful. She is a really good teacher. Shakespeare was a true poet. Etc.

·        Propositionally truth. Propositional truth refers to the correspondence between a statement, or proposition, and reality. A proposition is a declarative statement that asserts something about the world and can be assigned a truth value—either true or false—based on whether it accurately corresponds to facts or reality. For example, the proposition – an example of a scientific ‘law’ –  "Water boils at 100 degrees Celsius at sea level" is considered true because it accurately reflects a physical phenomenon observable in the world. In contrast, the proposition "The moon is made of green cheese" is false because the evidence shows it to be untrue – indeed, it would violate known scientific laws.

   

The classical attempt to say what unites these senses is given by Aristotle and refined by Aquinas. We aspire to truth when we aspire to say of what is, that it is. To say of what is not, that it is not. If we indeed say of what is that it is, then we have spoken truly. If not, falsely. Truth is in us – a product of intellect (and language, representation). It does not depend on what we think but on the things, the way the world is, reality. How the world is determines what is true or false. The intellect makes the thoughts that are adequate to reality – or not.  “The truth is in the intellect in so far as it is conformed to the object understood.”

    This is so abstract that it does not tell us anything about any concrete truth. Philosophical concepts like 'goodness' or ‘truth’ allow them to encompass a wide range of interpretations and applications across different domains of life and thought. They stretch because reality is what it is and we are what we are. As long as the strong analogy holds between different applications, we understand more in light of them. When the analogy breaks and the same word get used equivocally, we have to go back to the drawing board.

 

 

A Fact of the Matter versus an Account that Aspires to Truth

   The concept of 'true' shares a similar analogical nature with 'good,' exhibiting a versatility that adapts its meaning across diverse contexts while retaining a core characteristic. When we speak of something as 'true,' whether in empirical sciences, ethics, or epistemology, we invoke a standard of correspondence to reality. For instance, a true scientific theory accurately describes and predicts observable phenomena, while a true ethical principle aligns with moral values and norms upheld by a community. In epistemology, true beliefs correspond with objective facts about the world. However, like 'good,' the term 'true' shifts in meaning when applied to different domains. A true statement in mathematics pertains to logical consistency and proof, whereas a true statement in literature might communicate authenticity (i.e. fitting, appropriate, revealing) responses to reality. In contrast to 'good,' which may denote different qualities entirely (like sharpness for a knife versus teaching ability for a teacher), 'true' maintains a consistent core criterion of correspondence with reality across its varied applications. This analogical nature of truth allows it to be assessed contextually while upholding its fundamental essence of accuracy and alignment with the facts of the matter.

     Acknowledging the diversity of statements and the realities they address reveals the complexity of truth as correspondence to reality. Statements range widely, encompassing factual claims about physical phenomena, interpretations of artistic works, explanations of human behavior, and conceptual analyses of abstract ideas like 'truth' itself. Each type of statement interacts with its corresponding reality in distinct ways: empirical statements are evaluated against observable phenomena, interpretative statements against cultural contexts, and conceptual statements against logical coherence. This complexity suggests that truth involves not only factual accuracy but also contextual relevance, interpretative validity, and conceptual consistency. Thus, while disclosing reality remains the central underlying feature of truth, its application across diverse statements means that considerations of context, interpretation, and the nature of the realities are often in play. Truth is an analogical concept.

    Truth is frequently articulated through critical vocabularies internal to diverse domains such as art, ethics, and philosophical inquiry. For instance, when we describe a poem as sentimental, we invoke a critical vocabulary that assesses its adherence to truth in art. Sentimentality suggests that the poem may manipulate emotions in a way that departs from genuine emotional depth or authenticity, thereby distorting reality to achieve a self-gratifying effect. Conversely, an unsentimental poem might be praised for its raw honesty and adherence to the complexities of human experience, aligning more closely with a plausible understanding of reality. In ethics, terms like integrity and hypocrisy similarly serve as critical markers of truth, evaluating the consistency and sincerity of actions and intentions against convictions about what is morally real. These examples illustrate how truth, when considered within various critical vocabularies, is a placeholder term for more complex language use in different areas of life. It has become difficult for us to see the connection between these critical vocabularies and truth because of the way the latter concept intersects with different public ideologies (or ‘discourses’) in contemporary capitalist culture.

   The popular notion of truth often hinges on straightforward correspondence between statements of fact and states of affairs: "It is raining outside" is deemed true if, indeed, rain is falling. However, in numerous spheres of human inquiry and experience, truth emerges through accounts that go beyond simple factual statements. In history, for instance, the truth about past events is uncovered through narratives that consider multiple perspectives, primary sources, and historical contexts. A historical narrative is evaluated for its coherence and consistency in explaining the complexities of social, political, and cultural dynamics. Similarly, in science, the truth of a scientific theory is not merely a matter of stating facts but involves constructing explanatory frameworks that integrate empirical evidence, predictive power, and internal consistency. Theories like Einstein's theory of relativity or Darwin's theory of evolution provide comprehensive accounts of natural phenomena that transcend individual observations to offer broader explanatory power. In philosophy, truth often emerges from rigorous argumentation and conceptual analysis, where competing theories are evaluated based on their logical coherence, explanatory scope, and ability to withstand critical scrutiny. These examples illustrate that while correspondence to facts remains fundamental, truth in many areas of life is disclosed or falsified through rich, contextual accounts that capture the complexities and interconnectedness of reality.

        Coherence complements the idea of truth by providing an additional criterion for evaluating complex accounts and narratives while maintaining the requirement that truth ultimately discloses aspects of reality. While correspondence to facts establishes the factual accuracy of statements, coherence ensures the internal consistency and logical integrity of broader accounts or theories. In historical research, for example, a coherent narrative not only aligns with known facts but also integrates disparate events and perspectives into a unified framework that elucidates the causal relationships and historical significance of events. Similarly, in scientific inquiry, coherence demands that theories not only explain observed phenomena but also maintain logical consistency across various experiments and predictions. A scientific theory that is coherent reflects a deeper understanding of natural processes and can withstand empirical scrutiny over time. In philosophy, coherence theories of truth posit that truth emerges from the systematic coherence of beliefs within a comprehensive framework, where each belief supports and reinforces others without contradictions. This approach ensures that truth is not merely a collection of isolated facts but a cohesive understanding that reveals deeper insights into the nature of reality. Therefore, while coherence enhances our understanding and assessment of truth, it does so in conjunction with correspondence to reality, ensuring that truth claims are both internally coherent and genuinely reflective of the complexities of the world.

    The 'correspondence' metaphor, while intuitive, can be misleading as it implies that language and thought directly mirror or model reality. However, the ability of accounts and narratives to disclose or falsify aspects of reality, such as ideologies revealing underlying power dynamics rather than objective truths, suggests a qualification. Our accounts of reality are always partial and context-bound, capable of uncovering certain aspects while potentially obscuring others. Reality, in this view, transcends our attempts to exhaustively capture it through language or representation in art– at least when philosophical, theological, historical, or literary accounts aim at truthfulness. Heidegger's conception of truth as uncovering or disclosure, rooted in his existential phenomenology, resonates here. For Heidegger, truth involves revealing the underlying meaning and significance of phenomena within the context of human existence, rather than simply mirroring the world as it is This approach maintains a form of realism by affirming that there is an independent reality to which our interpretations can correspond, while recognizing the interpretative and contextual nature of truth claims relative to our finitude. Thus, truth as disclosure offers a richer understanding that accommodates the complexities and limitations inherent in our attempts to grasp and articulate the nature of reality.

    The search for truth can be seen as the quest to make sense of a complex and often bewildering reality. In our attempts to understand the world, whether in science, philosophy, literature, or everyday life, we engage in a continuous process of sense-making. This involves constructing coherent narratives, developing explanatory frameworks, and refining our conceptual tools to better grasp the multifaceted aspects of reality. While acknowledging the inherent limits of human understanding—where reality surpasses our ability to comprehend it fully—the pursuit of truth drives us to seek patterns, connections, and meanings that bring order and intelligibility to our experiences. Whether we are unraveling the laws of physics, exploring ethical dilemmas, interpreting historical events, or contemplating the nature of existence itself, the search for truth involves making sense of diverse phenomena and integrating them into meaningful frameworks of understanding. In this way, truth-seeking almost defines our humanity relative to other animals that we know of. That is what is means to be self-conscious, to be an animal capable of language and reason. 

   The complexity of the concept exceeds my grasp. Here is an attempt to picture the complexity, and it only scratches the surface:

 

 

.  . .

  As long as Catholicism, for example, is true, then no other real truth can contradict it. I heard this from a Thomist the other day. If science makes a claim that seems to contradict Catholic truth, either science is mistaken or (more probable) if one rightly understands Catholic doctrine, then the appearance of contradiction was mistaken. If science provides overwhelming evidence for some version of evolution over billions of years, then the account in Genesis cannot be understood to be a counterfactual account; it must be understood symbolically – as the Church understands it. No contradiction. More fundamentalist protestant sects understand Genesis as a literal, factual account. Thus for them science is mistaken. And they can account for all the evidence amassed by science by claiming God must be testing our faith.

    Reason can be interpreted as trying to know – to justify beliefs – through looking at the empirical world and by argument. Argument can be interpreted as based on the syllogism:

1.    All living beings that have evolved from simpler forms of life are products of natural selection.

2.    Humans are living beings that have evolved from simpler forms of life.

3.    Therefore, humans are products of natural selection.

4.    No species that is a product of natural selection was created in its current form by a divine being.

5.    Humans are a species that is a product of natural selection.

6.    Therefore, humans were not created in their current form by a divine being.

 

A classical empiricist objection to the syllogism as a way to knowledge is the problem of infinite regress. This objection posits that the truth of any syllogistic conclusion depends on the truth of its premises. However, the premises themselves must also be justified by further premises, leading to an endless chain of justifications. Here is how this objection can be applied to the given example: All living beings that have evolved from simpler forms of life are products of natural selection. This premise relies on the acceptance of the theory of evolution, which in turn is based on numerous observations, experiments, and sub-theories. Each of these sub-theories and observations requires its own justification and empirical support. Another premise –  Humans are living beings that have evolved from simpler forms of life – depends on specific evidence that humans have evolved, such as fossil records, genetic evidence, and comparative anatomy. Again, each piece of evidence requires further validation and support. For the syllogism to be valid and provide new knowledge, the premises must be true. However, ensuring their truth requires additional premises to support the theory of natural selection. Each supporting premise itself would need further justification, creating an infinite regress where each level of premises demands an additional level of premises to validate it. Consequently, the syllogism alone cannot break free from this chain and provide definitive knowledge without empirical grounding. This shows the necessity of relying on sensory experience and empirical evidence at each step, rather than purely logical reasoning, to avoid the infinite regress and establish any claim as knowledge. But sensory experience is not self-authenticating; it can be doubted, as Descartes and Berkeley did.

   The point is this: for reason to do its job, we must at some point in the chain assume that our knowledge corresponds with the truth. We must take certain truths as self-evident. As long as our lives run their course, nothing may challenge this. I must not only believe in the reality of the world (in some sense) but in the goodness of life (despite all the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune). I must believe that human beings are intelligible objects of love and thus forgiveness. I must believe that I ought never to cast the first stone. I must believe that no one can just exploit others as contemptible objects. That it is better to live in the truth than a lie. Etc. Whenever I make an argument, deep down such beliefs function logically as self-evident truths. I am justified in believing them to be self-evident, however, only because I would choose not to be born into a universe in which they weren’t true.

    As long as my life goes on without anything terrible happening, these beliefs will retain the status of self-evident truths in my belief system. But let happen to a son of mine what happened to a little girl in Potsdam some time ago – kidnapped, raped, murdered – and in my despair I might be brought to curse God and the entire Creation. Who knows how they will respond to such horrors? Now my response doesn’t determine the truth or falsity of the beliefs. But at the deepest level beliefs are not like facts or conceptual truths – It is raining. A whole is greater than its part. They are intelligible – or not. They make sense of life as a whole – or not. All the beliefs I stated can fail to make sense of my life if my life changes. And they continue to make sense of my life only because I can somehow separate from happened to the little girl from my life – which may be an illusion.

   We live in the gap between our beliefs, the ways our beliefs are justified (or not), and the never fully attainable truth. We must assume some beliefs as self-evident though we know they can only be that in faith, hope, and love – or the absence of these virtues. Scepticism does not escape this dilemma, at least if it asserts something like there is no truth, reality, or knowledge – that itself is a self-evident truth-claim.

 

. . .

 

    There is a gap between ‘I know x’ and ‘x is true,’ although these and similar expressions are often used synonymously.  Let me use one simple context out of millions of more complex ones. I come home from work and find my family eating supper. I see a full portion of Brussels sprouts on my son’s plate and, knowing he doesn’t like Brussels sprouts, assert: that Kili did not eat his Brussels sprouts. That belief is justified by the evidence on the plate and my knowledge of my son’s likes and dislikes, his eating habits. My belief – here following a well-trodden path in epistemology – is somewhat justified, but I wouldn’t say ‘I know that Kili has not eaten his Brussels sprouts’ because this evidence is inconclusive; I was not present the whole time. Kili protests – ‘That is not true!’ –  and informs me that what I see is his third helping. His mother and brother both confirm this. Later someone in the family doubts that Kili eats Brussels sprouts but I can refute this: ‘I know he does!’ and relate this incident.

    There is a world – a form of life – interwoven with language in the background here. An alien might have great difficulty making sense of any of this. But for us who share this form of life or world, the connection between truth, knowledge, and reality seems straightforward. It is like these concepts (and others, like belief and justification) are part of one conceptual puzzle: you don’t have the whole picture until you have all the pieces and know how they fit together. You can’t just reflect on the concept of truth without reflecting on the concepts that are a part of it (I prefer the old-fashioned word Idea (translation of the Greek eidos) to concept, in its Platonic understanding). 

    If x is true, however – if my assertion ‘Kili ate his Brussels sprouts’ is true – we are saying something about the way reality is. If I know x – if I say ‘I know Kili ate his Brussels sprouts’ – then I am saying something about how well justified my belief is in the truth of my belief. My belief is very well justified in this example – but not certain. Kili, brother, and mother could have lied to me to protect Kili from my mild censure. At another level, I might have been dreaming the whole thing. We do have ways to distinguish dreaming from waking reality but sometimes that might be difficult to do. At yet another level, I might live in the Matrix, and my whole world might be just a computer-generated image. In the first case, perhaps they will admit the truth later in life. At the third level, no possible certainty can be attained because it would require getting out of my consciousness of the world to see the world as it is apart from my experience. Either he ate his sprouts or he did not. ‘He did’ is either true or false, period. ‘I know he did’ can be practically certain, almost, if I know my family to be honest. But logically it can never be certain. I can be wrong about anything I am justified in believing, and thus know. Only with an absolute Knower – God – can what is known exactly correspond with what is true.

     Thus truth is more an Idea like a geometrical circle. Of any circle we draw on paper, we can ask: ‘Is it a good circle?’ ‘How closely does it correspond to the ideal geometric circle?’ Of anything we know, of anything we believe is true, we can ask: ‘But is it really true?’ Just as our empirical circles – the ones we draw on paper – can approach perfection without ever attaining it, so can our knowledge approach truth without ever attaining it, except perhaps in phenomena like the law of non-contradiction, which are the precondition for the possibility of saying anything about the world at all.

 

. . .

The deadly sin of much philosophy is the desire to reduce this complexity by reducing reality to, say, reality-as-studies-by-science; and thus truth becomes truth-as-makes-sense-in-science. 

. . .

The biggest enemy of truth is the fat, relentless ego. Reality limits the ego, and therefore the ego denies reality, makes up its own "truth." 

"We live in a fantasy world, a world of illusion. The great task in life is to find reality." - Iris Murdoch

Truthfulness is a spiritual demeanor, a constant will to align your intellect and feelings with reality.