What Is Truth.pdf

E SSAY : W HAT IS T RUTH ?

This essay was written with a view to clarifying some thoughts. Feedback will be most

appreciated.

THE VALUE OF TRUTH

Regarding the question of “What is truth?”, perhaps it is worth inquiring into the matter in

some depth, since truth is very likely the most important concept in all of philosophy, logic,

religion, science and even everyday life. After all, if a philosophy or religion or logical

argument or scientific theory isn’t true, what good is it?

Any serious statement, argument, teaching or theory stands or falls by whether there is any

truth in it or not. If there isn’t, it is hardly even worth mulling over.

Of course there are those viewpoints which claim that truth is valueless, and naturally that

means that the viewpoint itself, even if true (let alone if it isn’t), must be valueless: so there

is no need to mention or deal with such a viewpoint, except in passing. (After all, what need

is there to refute a viewpoint which by its own admission must be valueless?)

Now assuming that truth really does have some value, the question needs to be asked: “What

is truth?”

DEFINITION OF “TRUTH”

Normally the word “truth” is taken to mean “an idea corresponding with some sort of

reality”. (The Hypertext Webster Gateway has it thus: “truth: … Conformity to fact or

reality; exact accordance with that which is, or has been, or shall be”; and the WWWebster

Online Dictionary has it as “the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or

reality”.)

Of course this implies that there is a clear meaning to the term “reality”. Most dictionaries

give rather flimsy and weak definitions of “reality” (e.g.: “1: the quality or state of being real;

2 a (1): a real event, entity, or state of affairs < his dream became a reality > (2): the totality

of real things and events < trying to escape from reality > b: something that is neither

derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily” — from the WWWebster Online Dictionary ,

which also defines “real” as “having objective independent existence”.)

In most of these, “reality” is pretty much defined as “that which exists”, which isn’t too

strong a definition; and since it is obvious that nothing can exist independently of everything

else, that part can obviously be scratched as a valid definition anyway. So to be a valid

definition for the purposes of this inquiry, the definition must clearly be strengthened.

ESSAY: W HAT IS T RUTH ?

Thus a clear meaning has to be given to the term “reality” in the context of this discussion.

One possible meaning, which seems clear enough, might be as follows:

“Reality is that of which the existence is undoubtable, undeniable and/or irrefutable.”

It is to be understood by the above that of these three words, undoubtable, undeniable and/or

irrefutable, only the applicable word(s) should apply to any individual case. For instance, it

is both undoubtable and undeniable that pain exists, especially when the pain is intense. In

any case it would be impossible to find sufficiently intense pain either doubted or denied for

any length of time. However, the term “irrefutable” does not seem to apply here, because the

existence of pain is not proven , but rather directly experienced .

On the other hand, the theorems of pure mathematics are proven , not directly experienced.

Thus if the theorems of pure mathematics are to be taken as being a part of reality, they

must be irrefutable . (However, it may be best to examine this concept in greater depth at a

later stage in this essay, since it is not altogether clear in what sense they are part of reality.)

It is also to be noted that under the above definition, the term “to exist” or “to be” need not

be defined at all. When there is pain, the existence of pain is both undoubtable and

undeniable, and thus the meaning of the words “exists” and “is” is self-evident. (And so, too,

is the meaning of “pain”.)

Anyway, taken simply as a beginning to this inquiry, given this definition of the term

“reality”, the term “truth” is seen to be not exactly synonymous with reality: rather it must

be taken as a thought that corresponds with reality: a kind of “map”, as it were, of reality.

Thus for instance the statement (or thought, or idea, or proposition, or concept) “suffering

exists” is not the suffering itself. The suffering is the reality; the statement “suffering exists”

is the truth which corresponds with that reality.

Of course the statement (or thought, or idea, or proposition or concept) “suffering exists”

also exists. But the reality of its existence is not the same reality as the reality of the

existence of suffering.

This, then is the most commonly-used sense in which the word “truth” is used, and may for

all intents and purposes be considered the “definitive” definition of the word.

“TRUTH” USED AS “TRANSCENDENTAL REALITY”

However, the term “truth” is also used in other ways. Admittedly this is not done often, but

it is so used. For example the word “Truth”, especially with a capital “T”, is sometimes

used in the sense of “a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality”. This is the way it is

Page

ESSAY: W HAT IS T RUTH ?

used in many different languages, so it is highly likely that there is some universality to this

concept. Examples are : the statement attributed — whether mistakenly or not is a moot

point at this stage — to Jesus: “I am the way, the truth and the life” ( Gospel according to St

John 14:6 — most likely originally uttered, if it was uttered at all, in Aramaic); “Grace and

truth came by Jesus Christ” ( Gospel according to St John 1:17 — originally written in

Greek); the celebrated utterance attributed — again, whether mistakenly or not is a moot

point — to the Sufi mystic Mansur al-Hallaj An’al Haqq “I am the truth” (originally

presumed to have been uttered in Arabic), and the Vedic dictum ekam sat viprâh bahudhâ

vadanti (Sanskrit), which can be validly translated as “Truth is one; the wise / In many ways

do speak of it”.

“TRUTH” MEANING “MUNDANE REALITY”

Then there is the sense in which the word “truth” is used as being synonymous with (non-

transcendental or mundane) reality (or real state of affairs): as in the phrase “in truth”, which

is taken to mean the same as “in reality”. Here the words “truth” and “reality” are

considered to be pretty much equivalent to one another.

“TRUTH” RATHER ILL-DEFINED IN WORKS OF FICTION

There is also the somewhat ill-defined way the word “truth” is used in connection with

fiction. It is averred, for instance, that utterly fictional and made-up stories like Aesop’s

Fables or the Panchatantra teach or point to “important truths”. This despite the fact that

the stories are not only made up, but that there is not even a pretense that they are not made

up. The same thing is averred of such plays as Oedipus Rex , King Lear or Shakûntalâ . Or of

stories such as Alice in Wonderland (which is so far removed from reality that not only is the

“Wonderland” purported to have been visited by the fictional “Alice” not claimed to have

been real, but even the dream that “Alice” is supposed to have dreamed about “Wonderland”

is not claimed to have been real!) Come to that, fairy tales are also regarded as “helping little

children learn important truths”.

However, just what these truths are is not altogether clear or agreed upon. Indeed different

readings of the same work of fiction may reveal different “truths”! And yet the discerning

viewpoint cannot help but admit that there is some truth in all these works of fiction: indeed

the truth in them is in some ways far more important than in many so-called “documents of

fact” such as histories or court transcripts. It is a very abstract sort of truth, no doubt, and

not too easy to pin down or define accurately, but it does seem to be a valid sort of truth

nonetheless.

“TRUTH” UNDEFINED IN WORKS OF ART

Indeed perhaps for these reasons, it is averred that “truth” of the same sort, only more

abstract still, inheres even in works of art that cannot be put into words: such as sonatas or

Page

ESSAY: W HAT IS T RUTH ?

symphonies or paintings or sculpture. Even in architecture, when referring to buildings, what

is called a “truth in materials” is often spoken of, in the sense for instance that woodwork

should not be painted or veneered over, or vinyl made to look like tile. Sensitivity to art and

architecture makes it clear that this sort of use of the word “truth” is not really invalid, even

though the meaning here of the word “truth” is extremely hard to define. The mere fact that

there has often been repressive regulation of works of art, music, and architecture, and even

murderous condemnation of artistic viewpoints in many totalitarian regimes around the

world, should be proof enough of the fact that works of art have been regarded by political

authorities in many societies to be expressing some truth which could put in danger the

prevailing power structure.

It may be argued that it might be possible to put down in words the truths inherent in such

works of art, but that is obviously not altogether the case. If it were, then it ought to be

possible, for example, to replace the Hammerklavier Sonata with a page or two of prose or

poetry, which ought to create essentially the same effect. That is obviously quite

impossible.

“TRUTH” AS USED IN LOGIC

Of course the way the word “truth” as used in logic is also relevant to this inquiry. But it

can get quite tricky indeed, as logicians know full well. To quote from The Free On-line

Dictionary of Computing (15 Feb ’98):

“Logic is concerned with what is true and how we can know whether something is

true. This involves the formalisation of logical arguments and {proof}s in terms of

symbols representing {proposition}s and {logical connective}s. The meanings of

these logical connectives are expressed by a set of rules which are assumed to be self-

evident.”

The tricky part here lies, of course, in the last bit: the set of rules which are assumed to be

self-evident. The rules themselves cannot be proved by logic. Now in what way is the truth

of these rules known? This is the point from which much of the argument in logic as to what

truth is — and whether it is at all applicable to the “real world” — seems to stem. (A

viewpoint which has been attributed to Marvin Minsky, the well-known MIT Artificial

Intelligence expert, is the following: “Logic does not apply to the real world!” Whether this

is true or not is, of course, yet to be determined.)

On the mailing list Logic-L there has been much discussion of late (December 1999)

concerning where there is only “one true logic or many”. It also seems clear that all the

expert viewpoints on that list have yet to come to a consensus regarding the answer to this

question. If this is so when even the best and most expert viewpoints are inquiring into the

subject, what can an amateur viewpoint contribute?

Page

ESSAY: W HAT IS T RUTH ?

And yet it seems illogical to suppose that there is no truth at all which logic can provide. If

that were the case, why should not logic be abandoned altogether? The fact that logic does

allow valid inferences to be arrived at (or perhaps it would be more accurate to say,

seemingly valid inferences!) leads to the conclusion that there must be some sense in which

logic leads the mind at least toward the truth — even if it doesn’t actually take it all the way

there.

Also, even if it is true that logic does not apply to the real world, by what sort of logic is the

truth of that statement determined? At some point or other, as the celebrated though

fictitious Vulcan character Mr Spock might have said on Star Trek: the Old Generation , it is

illogical not to apply logic to the real world. (It is intriguing, in fact, to speculate on what Mr

Minsky might have said in reply to Mr Spock!)

It all seems fairly tricky: for even though it cannot be pinned down exactly how logic leads

toward the truth, yet it seems indisputable and undeniable that it does!

GOEDEL’S THEOREM

It gets even trickier when Goedel’s Theorem is factored in, which basically states that in any

system of logic which is sufficiently advanced to enunciate the theorems of arithmetic,

statements can be made which can be neither proved nor disproved within that system of

logic. (This, by the way, does not mean that these statements are neither true nor not true:

all it means is that they can’t be proved either true or not true; and that too, only within that

particular system of logic! Other systems of logic may be able to prove their truth — but

then again, they may not be able to do so.)

But then this leads to the question whether a statement or proposition proven true under

one system of logic is equally true under another! If it is, then all “logics” — two-valued,

many-valued, fuzzy, Boolean, De Morgan, etc., etc. — ought to be pretty much equivalent;

however this is not so, as affirmed by expert viewpoints on the subject.

But if a statement (or proposition) can be true under one system of logic and not so under

another, what is meaning of such a “truth”? How can a proposition be in reality — or even

in logic taken as a whole — both true and not true? (Agreed that the term “not true” does not

necessarily mean “false” — it can for example mean “indeterminate” or “meaningless” or

“inapplicable” — but even so, how can it be both true and meaningless, or both true and

indeterminate, or both true and inapplicable?)

It is worth asking, therefore, whether it is at all possible to determine the truth or otherwise

of conclusions arrived at by any system of logic without using some system of logic. It

seems impossible to even come to the conclusion that a proposition can be true under one

system of logic but not true under another, without using some sort of logic in the first place.

It may be called a “meta-logic” or some such thing, but logic of some sort has to be used even

Page

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: