Let us reflect on What is the nature and meaning of "truth"?

Greetings, Ken

It's nice to hear from you. I usually lean something when you write.

However, I must say that I don't find it too helpful what someone says: "what is, is." It somehow doesn't seem to shed much light on whatever the topic was being discussed at the time. That's just my opinion. And I may be wrong.

If a patient, for example, goes to a doctor to get rid of an annoying symptom, and all the doctor tells him is: "What is, is." do you think the patient will feel any more comfortable? [This happened to me once. Soon thereafter I changed doctors. Now, fortunately, I don't need any at all for I feel pretty darn helathy.]

I would, though, supplement my analysis of truth in the original post by giving some attention to The Pragmatic Theory of Truth.

It contends that something is true if it serves to enhance human life.

This Pragmatic school of thought was founded by the American philosophers Josiah Royce, William James. amd John Dewey.

As to where I would place Pragmatic Truth on the values spectrum, it belongs between Extrinsic Value and Intrinsic Value. Value, by definition, is a function of meaning.
E-Values have a countable meaning. I-Values have an uncountable meaning. They must be experienced as gestalts, as wholes. The valuer - because he is so involved with what he is valuing, and so strongly identifies with it - forms a continuum with what is being valued ..they become a diversity within a unity. We can't tell where the valuer leaves off and where what he is valuing begins in the case of Intrinsic Value.
That is how R. S. Hartman (and I) define Intrinsic value.

For further details see Chapters Two and Three, pp. 8-16 in my manual entitled ETHICS: A College Course. Here is a link to it:
http://tinyurl.com/2mj5b3


A popularized, easier to read, and briefer,version is found here:
http://tinyurl.com/24swmd
See Types of Value on p. 3.




---------- Post added at 04:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:43 PM ----------

In case anyone is wondering about it, the term "compenetration" came from the writings of Henri Bergson.

See his THE CREATIVE MIND (NY: Philosophical Library, 1946). Also see
Henri Bergson, THE TWO SOURCES OF MORALITY AND RELIGION (New York: Holt, 1935).

Ken,

I detect a presumption as to why I went to the doctor; and also a scintilla of confusion as to the kind of truth to which the pragmatist refers.

I brought up the symptom - say it was about a dry throat - because I wanted the doctor to give me an idea about how to prevent it from happening. I may have told him of a bad habit - say it was breathing via an open mouth while sleeping. It would have been sensible for him to inquire further -- e.g., as to whether the patient's nostrils were stuffed; and probing deeper, as to whether hay fever ran in his family, and did the symptom occur at the start of the ragweed season, etc.? I - as the patient in such a case - would have wanted him to give suggestions as to how to clear up those blocked nasal passages. Instead he declared: "It is what it is." And he let it go at that. It didn't solve the problem, nor alleviate the presenting symptom.

Do you think he might have been an Aristotelian teaching me metaphysics?

You write: "suppose I were to say that it was true that there was a piece of lint on my carpet. Would that mean that there being a piece of lint on the carpet "serves to enhance human life"? I find that somewhat implausible."
You are speaking of another sort of "truth" here.

The Pragmatic Theory is emphasizing that real truth to them is valuable-for-advancing-human-flourishing truth. They are speaking of what Dewey later called 'the reconstruction of experience.' He wrote a whole book about it. It refers to an activity more than to a proposition. If you say: " I'm going to work for social access to low-cost availability of clean energy for homes" or "I'm going to do what I can to teach families to limit the number of children to one or two so that resources are sustainable," the pragmatist might utter: That's good and true! What's true - in this sense - is what works -- works to improve individual and social life.

I never said the doctor quoted Aristotle. Why should he have? You did not ask him the question, "what is truth"? You asked him, "why does my throat hurt?" And when he told you it hurt because of dryness due to allergy, he said what is, and what he said is, indeed was (the case), and so, what he told you was true. He told you that your dryness was caused by allergy, it was caused by allergy, and, therefore, he told you what was true. Of course, he did not tell you what truth was, since you did not ask him that question, and you did not go to him to find out the answer to that question. The question, "what is true about the cause of my throat hurting?" (or, in plain English, "why does my throat hurt?") is clearly a different question from the question, "What is truth". And you asked the doctor the first question, not the second. And Aristotle answered the second, but not, of course, the first.

I don't know what kind of "truth" you believe I am speaking of when I say that it is true that there is a piece of lint on the carpet, but it seems to me to be the very same kind of truth the doctor told you when you asked him why your throat hurt, and the same kind of truth that the astronomer tells you when he tells you that Mars is the fourth planet, or a Pragmatist thinks he is telling you when he tells you that "truth serves to enhance human life". Namely, that what is, is. They are telling you that what is being said corresponds to what is the case. And that is, of course, what is truth. And, if what is being said, does not correspond to what is the case, then what is being said is, false (or not true). (So, Aristotle also tells us that to say that something is, when it is not, is to say what is false). And that seems to be true as well.

It might be that truths always "serve to enhance life" (whatever that might mean) but I rather doubt it. It is true that there is a bit of lint on the carpet, but I don't see that the fact "serves to enhance life" in any sense of that phrase that I can even think of. Nor that Mars is the fourth planet does much life enhancing either.

No, no. I did not ask my (former) doctor why my throat hurt. [That wa a careless reading of what I wrote earlier.]
I told him that the dehydration might be due to my mouth opening when I was not conscious of it, and I wanted him to tell me how to avoid that happening! What he said was a grossly-inadequate response to my plea. [I'm happy to report that I'm no longer a mouth breather! -- no thanks to that fellow. He on a later occasion violated his Hippocratic Oath, and directly inflicted pain, causing a thrombosis of a vein, after I asked him not to, so I dropped him as my physician right after that. I don't believe in lawsuity.]

When I brought up the Pragmatic Theory I was not discussing your carpet lint example. They are using the notion "truth" in a different way. That's why I did not equate it with The Correspondence Theory. The Pragmatic Theory is richer in meaning than the theories lower on the spectrum. It is another (maybe not entirely-distinct) kind of truth. Let us cease conflating the two, okay? They are as different as an x-ray is from infre-red light.... yet both are on the same spectrum.

You seem to have a thing about Aristotle, and that's fine. Recall, though, how reliable his Physics is, such as when he tells us how many teeth a horse has in its mouth, and other purported facts. To tell someone that 'what is, is" may not be satisfying, and may not add much information to a discussion, for it sounds tautological - even if you might argue that it is not. I know you are dealing with philosophers here and not laymen (?) but I personally believe that the analysis of the concept "truth" offered in the first post of this thread is more useful, and thus may credibly described as superior to other analyses I have seen. ...but that's just me....

If what Aristotle said explains it better for you, then good luck to you. I have no quarrel with that.

It is all very well to say that the pragmatic theory is "richer in meaning", although I really have no idea what that means. But it does not seem to me that "richer in meaning" is a criterion of any sort for whether a theory is correct or not. I don't know whether the Copernican theory of the solar system is "richer in meaning" than is the Ptolemeic, but that is not the sort of thing I would look to in order to decide which is correct. The criterion I would use is which of the theories is correct when subject to test. A theory may be ever so "rich in meaning" whatever that means, but that does not seem to me much of a criterion (if a criterion at all) of when the theory should be accepted as correct. (Of course, how we tell whether one theory is "richer in meaning than another" is still another issue to which I doubt there is an answer).

I wonder why you think that what "true" means in the case of one thing differs from that it means in the case of other things. And how do you tell whether "true" in one case means something different from what it means in another case? In any case, "useful" certainly is not the same as "true", and if one theory is more useful than another, the most probable explanation of that is that is that the theory is true. So, utility is an excellent indication of truth, rather than the other way round.

Finally, I think that Aristotle was a great philosopher (but that is not news). However, I am not using Aristotle as any kind of authority. I just think that his view of truth is the correct one. I don't think it is tautologous, which you, yourself have proved. For if it were tautologous it would be self-evidently true, and you would have accepted it. But you, apparently do not accept it. Indeed you think another theory is better.

Finally, I think that Aristotle was a great philosopher (but that is not news). However, I am not using Aristotle as any kind of authority.

We agree that, as you said, "f one theory is more useful than another, the most probable explanation of that is that is that the theory is true. So, utility is an excellent indication of truth..." By that statement we see that you have "bought into" the pragmatic conception of truth. What is true is what works. Works to do what? Works to make this a better world - at least for the human species (since that is our bias.)

.I find it too bad that your initial ideas haven't really been picked up, because it was some really good ideas to start an interesting discussion.
...
What you say is that a defintion of truth has to fit a certain purpose.
It's clear that this could be any kind of purpose. Such a definition of truth is open to any possible kind of corruption. ...

The initial ideas were very interesting, and i totally support your idea of developing a more differentiated definition of truth.

Excellent, wonderful,.....

Truth Deepthot, did you seek another doctor or did your doctor send you packing so to seek another.

---------- Post added at 03:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------




You write: "What you say is that a defintion of truth has to fit a certain purpose."

I don't believe I said exactly that, but I see how such an inference could be drawn. Yes, I have, inadvertently, been distorting the pragmatist's views, and have been unfair to their positions. I apologize for that. I was greatly over-simplifying and mis-remembering..


I think it would be helpful if students rs here would read or re-read John Dewey's book RECONSTRUCTION IN PHILOSOPHY.
http:/[URL="http:///books.google.com/books?id=ZUg8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&"]/[/URL]Reconstruction in philosophy - Google Book Search


Here is a quote directly from William James: "."

And Dewey believed that we are approaching truth when we make an indeterminate situation more determinate - thus solving a problem.

For details see Sections 3 at this llink:Pragmatism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It is directly about the Pragmatist Theory of Truth.
See also: http:/[URL="http:///en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey#Publication"]/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dewey#Publication[/URL]

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:11 AM ----------



I sought another doctor - but I sure haven't consulted him much. Now that a year has elapsed, I will likely go in for a panel of blood tests. But what does this have to do with the topic? It was all meant just as an illustration.

The truth is that arms manufacturers are strongly tempted to provoke conflict on both sides of any dispute that's going on. I wouldn't be surprised if they have agents carrying out this plan in order to get more business for their munitions sales.

There are plenty of wars going on but not as much as there were in the first 9 years of the twentieth century, according to United Nations statistics.

In truth, war ought to be defined (and widely-understood) as: organized mass-murder in the name of a good cause. Some noble cause is invariably used as a cover for the insane violence that is a war. As Elie Wiesel recently told the world at a ceremony in Germany, war is absurd.

Truth is a concept that is used to place one person higher in a hierarchy than someone else. It is a great way to market one's person and gain economic advantage.

Most group leaders, of all sorts, claim to have the truth. People pay to learn the truth. Of course, everyone who claims to know the Truth will disagree with everyone else who claims to know the Truth. This is called market competition. Sometimes it leads to wars.

Of course, everyone sees things from their own very narrow position in space and time, so it will always be different from someone else's point of view. Take for example, all the disagreements one encounters on a philosophy forum.

None of the above is the Truth. It is merely my perspective.

Rich

That was some harsh piece of criticism from urangutan.
First of all from my point of view i was totally on your side.
I find the thoeries of truth that you brought up way more sophisticated than what kennethamy had to say about "what is, is".
And when kennethamy sais

he is contradicting himself, because actually that's precisely what he does: Using Aristotle as an authority (saying that's not news).
Rhetorical stuff, forget it.
I find it too bad that your initial ideas haven't really been picked up, because it was some really good ideas to start an interesting discussion.
However at this point you made a statement that is doomed to be target of a bombardment:

What you say is that a defintion of truth has to fit a certain purpose.
It's clear that this could be any kind of purpose. Such a definition of truth is open to any possible kind of corruption.
It can be used for any kind of ideology. It could as well have served the Nazis.
The initial ideas were very interesting, and i totally support your idea of developing a more differentiated definition of truth. However you may have to make one step backwards at this point.

Yes, as Husserl's Phenomenology points out, Truth is perspective.

However some perspectives are better (for us as persons) than others!

Husserl argued that the best perspective is what he called "Intentionality."

I am not surprised that Husserl argued that his perspective is better than others and is closer to the Truth. For it, it got some followers, wrote lots of unreadable books, got a nice cushy job in a university (people pay good money for any theory that puts them at the top of the hierarchy), and lived a very comfortable life.

However, there are lots of people who disagree with Husserl, because they want to be at the top of the hierarchy. They want to have the Truth.

As for me. I have no desire to fight for King of the Hill. Anyone can have all the Truths they want. It is exhausting to stay at the top. I comfortable watching the wars rage, over who has the Truth.

Rich

As you may be aware, I subscribe to The Correspondence Theory, and give it its due. It has a fine place on the spectrum -- just as visible light has on the electromagnetic spectrum.

I was merely pointing out that other philosophers, James, Kierkegaard, Satre, etc. have other theories of truth ...and some even speak of ultimate, or absolute, truth. I was finding a place for them.

You well know that some claim that numbers (and all of Math) is just a human invention; and some, in contrast, consider them as having a sort of Platonic Ideal status: we borrowed them from a realm beyond. There is sort of an analogy here, when people say: Let there be Truth.

When we seek truth as philosophers (or as persons), are we seeking to draw upon some universal pool of prior knowledge and wisdom, or are we having an original conception of it -- when an idea pops into our heads?

The truth is I don't know for sure.

I still say my classification of the terms: "essence", "existence" and "reality" works for me. I find the axiometric analysis helpful, and once you start using it, I believe you will too. That is a confirmable prediction. {It is capable of being disverified, and thus meets Popper's criterion for scientific truthfulness..}