Introduction
Truth as a subject of investigation is very problematic. In this paper, through analysis of what philosophers have posited over time, it will be established that a universal understanding and appreciation of truth is possible. However, in given different contexts the approach to and appropriation of truth has to necessarily be different.
Over years, philosophers, educationists, religious leaders and people of all walks have grappled with questions such as ‘what is truth?’, ‘how do we ascertain truth?’ ‘Is truth subjective, relative or objective and universal?’ many over history have posited theories and definitions in the hope of clearing all doubts and questions about truth.
General Understanding of Truth
Generally, from a common sense perspective, truth refers to things as they are. To say this is the truth in common day to day usage of the word truth is to ascertain that things or reality being refereed to is as stated. On a universal scale, it is generally agreed that truth is about reality; truth is conformance or agreement of what is known or stated to reality or things as they are (Boodin, 57). It can be stated that truth is all valid statements of fact. However, that would require an explanation as to what facts are and how the validity of facts is ascertained. In saying truth is about reality, it remains hazy until we ascertain or make clear what reality is per se. Reality is generally understood as what is out there now (Coffey, 43). However, before what is out there now, was there not an out there now that gave way to the reality now? More so, is what is out there now not a possibility of other realities? To conclusively grasp (know) and understand the essence of truth, it appears, one has to understand or know all there is about everything. To know all there is about everything that is would necessarily mean looking into what something is and the positive condition or possibilities that are necessitated by the reality.
However, human beings are limited to a great extend in their knowing. The limitations are in the angularity, historicity and general problems in methods such as induction or deduction that human reasoning employs (Coffey, 34). It is for this reason that truth becomes elusive. The limitations in knowing or the scopes of knowledge frame truth. This is true as long as truth refers to all knowable. Grasping or realizing a knowable in its peculiarity and generality is basic to claim of having arrived at truth. Truth in this case is what one’s intellect arrives at after asking relevant question into a given knowable (Copleston, 88).
Correspondence Theory
The first theory on how to ascertain truth is known as the correspondence theory. This theory is more akin to common sense understanding of truth. For correspondence theorists, truth is to what extent given statements or beliefs correspond to the way things are i.e. actual state in which things are (Boodin, 59). This theory evolves from a theory of knowledge that asserts that ideas are abstracts from reality. The idea one has in his mind or head is formed of what has been deciphered from reality. It is from the empirical world or physical world that one realizes and conceptualizes ideas. The idea of man was realized once of nature, a being of the essence man was deciphered. The idea refers to a reality that is so all around the world (it is universal and agreed to by all people). The correspondence theory holds that what is true is what is. To know the truthfulness of a statement, one has to look into the reality to which it refers. If the statement conforms to reality; the statement is true. Therefore, truth is objective as can be confirmed by any other person. This is the kind of truth that ethics is base on and tends to strive towards. Naturalists as a moral school argue that human action should be in tandem with natural postulates (natural law theorists). The utilitarianism base their theory on an observed fact that pleasure and pain are the greatest reasons why people do what they do. Their postulates are derived of observations made of human living. However, ethics does not rely only on correspondence, just like mathematics whose development relies on coherent postulates but applications can only be verified in reality, some forms of ethical considerations are only but based on coherent theories or systems.
Although correspondence or conformance to reality is an objective measure of truth, it is also widely known that to ascertain what is real is problematic. It is also clear that reality is what is out there now. However, what was out there and the possibilities that what is out there now is a positive condition towards inform realities around which truthfulness has to be established (Norris, 5). The complexity of reality is what necessitated need for other measures of truth. Reality is not just the physical world; reality encompasses non material aspects or things. The truthfulness of ideas that do not have physical evidence cannot be measure in terms of correspondence.
Coherence Theory
These problems or challenges led to development of a coherence measure of truth. This theory of truth focuses more on the extent to which ideas, statements and facts fall into or fit into a whole system (Copleston, 93). Knowledge is understood to be a body of defined relations between things and dynamism in the things in self. Coherence would require that relations and interrelations fit into the whole without allowing room for doubt. To the extent that the new statements do not contradict and actually flow or follow from foregoing statements, they are taken for truth. In the history of human knowledge, this kind of thinking led to development of all sorts of ideological systems that served the interests of a few in societies. Mathematical truths to a large extent are based on the coherence in the system. On their own, mathematical truthfulness as based on coherence is widely criticized. The applicability of such like knowledge and its veracity is highly doubtful because by some other coherent development some other valid coherent alternative systems can be developed. Coherence in a theory does not necessarily mean things or reality is as such. If things are not as such, then truthfulness as based on coherence does not serve any meaningful purpose. For example, for long people coherently argued for the idea that the earth is the centre of the universe. Science has belabored to prove otherwise, proved that the sun is at the centre of the universe and the earth rotates around it. Hitler coherently, argued out his economic and social theory thus getting a large following.
Constructivist Theory
This led to another way of looking at truth called constructivism. Social constructivists, for example, hold that truth is often as dictated b social processes. Truth is conventional and depends largely on historical and cultural tenets. Much knowledge systems are based on social constructs. Social constructs are things or realities or concepts whose meaning is based on social agreement. For example, gender as understood is more of a social construct than anything based on reality or things as they are. It is our knowing depend more on our socialization. Socialization is a process that begins at birth (the way a child is introduced and slowly inducted into society). Therefore, what individuals come to understand as truth or ways of appreciating and appropriating truth is what was passed to them; schemas or theories or paradigms that have been developed over time. Truth in art is more of constructivist. It is widely believed that an artist communicates certain truths (Gardner, 16). However, the interpretation and appreciation of truth in art is depended on social schemes developed overtime. One poem could be interpreted in different ways by different people due to the social differences or constructed ways of analysis. A piece of art intentioned by the author to represent joy could be interpreted as representing sadness. Therefore, truth in art is more of relative and subjective.
The relativity or subjectivity of truth as explained by social theorists led to looking for a common ground between the divergent views. Each of the views seemed to have some truth or level of veracity. From this kind of point of view, some individuals sort consensus on given issues as the most objective way of establishing truthfulness. Consensus generally refers to agreement between two or more people on given contentious issues that would otherwise be source of conflicting or divergence. Consensus as a way of establishing truth does not only happen in art but also in mathematics. Given many mathematical formula or theories depend on coherence, their establishment as reliable relies more on consensus i.e. majority of mathematicians being convinced and agreeing on their authenticity, originality and applicability ( Norris, 61).
Consensus as a way of establishing truth has its own challenges. The fact that many people agree on a subject does not provide veracity. This is the fallacy in democracy i.e. it does not follow that the opinions and desires of the majority necessarily translate into a better life for a majority of a given citizenry. For example, there have been many instances where juries or judges in a case reach consensus on a verdict and make a ruling then later a hindsight or oversight is revealed; a detail they all overlooked that turns the case on its heels. Some truths in mathematics, art and ethics (forms of ethical bodies or stipulates) are more of agreed upon stipulations that are fallacious or inadequate or close critical scrutiny (Graham, 97).
Pragmatist Theory
The challenges in consensus led to a more pragmatic view of knowledge. It is true if in normal practice on daily life it finds relevancy (Copleston, 126). For a pragmatic, God is true to the extent that in daily living the God idea finds practical relevancy or effectiveness. From this point of view, mathematical truths, truth in art and the truthfulness of an ethical consideration are only to the extent of their efficacy in daily living of a people. It is interesting that from such a consideration, all truth (mathematical, ethical, and artistic) though not taking on any universal connotations are as good as they are relevantly applicable.
Conclusion
This essay has been an overview on the bases for truth. The points raised augment the idea that truth in art, mathematics and ethics is only different to the extent that bases of truth are different. However the truthfulness of what is posited as truth in mathematics, arts and ethics cannot be different.
Works Cited
Boodin, John, Elof. Truth And Reality: An Introduction To The Theory Of Knowledge. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2001
Coffey, Peter. Epistemology; Or, the Theory of Knowledge: An Introduction to General Metaphysics. Charleston: BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
Copleston, Frederick Charles. A History of Philosophy, London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 1999
Gardner, John. The Art of Fiction: Notes on Craft for Young Writers. USA: Vintage Books, 1991
Graham, Gordon. Eight Theories of Ethics. USA: Routledge, 2004
Norris, Christopher. Truth and the Ethics of Criticism. Manchester: Manchester University Press ND, 1994