Fantastic video!! I loved the way you sort of think through the explanations. I mean, you are not just reciting the theories, you are actively exploring them. The video felt like a conversation. Loved that.
Here's the textbook for our class: "Venturing into Philosophy" - amzn.to/3nPnJSA. If you're finding these videos useful and would like to help me produce more content for UA-cam, please consider becoming a Patreon: www.patreon.com/ProfG. Thanks!
Sir please, why didn't you upload the next video which continues above video? At the end of this video you promised to explain neu-pragmatic theory, I was looking for it but I couldn't find it on your channel😒
I suspect the Nature of God's Truth is so very Sacramental that people are often confused by their "Absolute Perception of Truth". For example, God never had any intention for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. God even sent His Angel to stop Abraham from killing. God was "testing" Abraham. People of the Abrahamic Faith typically see this as a Test. Yet different kinds of Atheists see this differently. Atheists Schooled in the Philosophy of Spinoza like Einstein see this as a Test, too. I suspect Atheists Schooled in the Philosophy of Dawkins tend to see this as a Lie. Some atheists go so far as to see the very nature of faith complete tomfoolery, much like Calvinism. Cessationism is a doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. The doctrine was developed in the reformation and is particularly associated with the Calvinists. Some aspects of Calvinism are wrong. God can open all of us to the Gifts of the Spirit if He chooses. Many people reject the Gifts of the Spirit because they do not want to do the necessary work. God knows in advance who will do His work.
Hi "Correspondence with reality" is the best definition of truth. The argument that we have no direct interaction with reality is incorrect. If a sign says "beware edge of cliff" and I say to myself "that is not reality, that is my mind interacting with my mental construction of reality", and keep walking until fall off the cliff, then my broken legs will tell me "that sign was reality". There's no arguing with broken legs. Philosophically, what just happened is that rather than our minds only being indirect perceivers of reality, reality has forced itself onto our mind. Reality can only do this if it is more real than our minds, and more powerful. There's no room for Berkeley's solipsism, and as Dr. Sam Johnson said as he kicked the stone, "I refute Berkeley thus". It's all been discussed 250 years ago. Coherence fails as a definer of truth because any group of liars can coordinate their lies to "cohere", but that doesn't make them "truth", because lies have nothing to do with truth. Pragmatism is a little better, but as the physicists found after Einstein discovered relativity, although Newton's classical mechanics still worked pragmatically in most situations, it was no longer "the truth". From a moral perspective, honesty is an ongoing commitment to truth that self corrects by abandoning non-truth, until only the correspondence with truth remains. Therefore honesty is truthfulness is truth. Cheers, P.R.
How is reality forcing itself onto your mind? That seems like a fallacy in saying the severity of an experience gives way to any less tenuous a connection with reality. You might look down and your eyes would see a bone poking out of your leg and blood spurting out, and your nervous system would flood your brain with messages saying that your body is in a bad condition (pain). If anything this works better to the merit of pragmatism as I see it. The cliff edge being nearby is true insofar as I need it to be true to maintain the good condition of my body, as I see it.
@@e.lattimer2238Hi e.lattimer. As soon as we open our eyes reality f. floods in. Eyes evolved so this could happen, and the more efficient the eyes, the more accurate the corresponding image of reality we form in our minds. Reality is not only physical existence but also information, a non-material reality. As religious people say, "as you think in your heart, so you become". That makes thought and imagination reality too, and also information. Cheers, P.R.
Isnt coherence theory circular reasoning? If i take it to first principles, whatever i decided was truth first, determines all other truth. Its not a statement about truth, its a statement about yourself.
Probably is circular but really makes sense that humans base each truth based on previous truths. Got me thinking about mathematics; we just decided to accept the axioms as true and so we can decide other truths/proofs based on them
Truth is the foundational of good, honest, and right living. If truth is tentative and changing all the time, then it never was truth in the first place.
I think what you're referring to is big T Truth. I believe this video is more about little t truths. Concepts like justice, beauty, goodness, aren't really addressed very well by these concepts insofar as I can tell. It's more just about how we can sensibly talk about our observations in the world, as opposed to those things which are external to it. I do agree with your sentiment, though.
Your comment on Correspondence Theory being problematic because of the ability to verify claims doesn’t take away from Correspondence Theory being correct. It just means we cannot verify what’s behind the wall but logically we can deduce that there is a “behind the wall”.
Is there a different category where you say an object exists when it is not subject to variations in truth perception? For example if we all push against a wall we are likely to be met with resistance and this "fact" could not be circumvented by any particular person's subjective opinion or experience
I still think that the correspondence theory of truth is the definition of truth that is closes to how most people use the word „truth“. And this is all a good definition really has to do. Our senses are maybe not perfect but there are enough to justify the belief and if the belief actually correspond to the entity then it is JTB-knowledge. We can also make statements about our own mind like „I believe that apples exist“ and this statement is only true if it correspond to the fact that I believe that there are apples and this is something I can actually know with absolute certainty.
I think my understanding of truth is closest to pragmatism. I feel like there's a problem with the coherence kind of truth, in that it can't work as an epistemological framework for _any particular_ truth, because something can only be true if it is coherent with other truths. Surely, it could only work to append new truths to already established ones? And what if something is true *and* is not coherent with other things previously thought to be "true"? Anyway, great video; I learned a lot.
Very useful for me, summed up majority of my semester 2 syllabus of these 3 theories of truth, very well defined and understandable explanations.. Thank you professor
11:11 This was a very interesting question, thanks! For me there's a few reasons I want to know the truth 1. I have strong terminal curiosity to seek out unknown truth for the sake of seeking it out 2. I have a strong terminal respect and love for the truth, safeguarding it, and curating it. 3. I want to do things for my own purposes 4. I want to know what meta-ethical theories are true 4a. If moral realism is true then I want to know what ethical theories and or applied ethical judgments are true because I want to be a good person
Hi Moral realism is true because the ethic of HONESTY always corresponds with that which is true. If something turns out to be false, then HONESTY adapts by discarding things known to be false. Cheers, P.R.
_The Truth is not a concrete object, like the table is in the room. The Truth is an Individual Spiritual Experience. The Truth is unique, and can be found in the heart of every living being, but just trough an Individual Spiritual Experience._
There are plenty of scientific theories that worked but turned out to be false. 2 examples off the top of my head are Newtonian gravity/Einstein's theory and the theory of phlogiston. A great book I recommend is "The structure of the scientific revolution" by Thomas Kuhn.
If you read that book, you would know that a theory does not have the presumption nor the goal of being "true". A theory is valued based on his functionality, on how well can it predict empyrical data that are detectable.
Thanks! Helpful. Appreciated. "Truth is tentative - no absolutes." Is that an absolute statement? Sounds like it to me. If so, isn't there a contradiction here?
hey professor have at it with these physical experiences ive had. that took me from believing that our souls go on to KNOWING that our souls go on. I’ve been a therapist since 2002- In 2011 One of my clients was going through a really hard time with a break up and just really depressed- well 20min into the session I felt this overwhelming presence of LOVE beaming through every cell of my being and then there was an instant download into my mind.. (telepathic communication) I am a family member that has passed away and I am here to love and support him- so I asked him, do you have any family relatives that have passed away... There was silence for a minute and then he said yeah my dad- In that moment I was shown that we never stop existing and that we are truly magnificent beings ! After that experience I started getting telepathic communication telling me to take a photo of the sky . I was driving and was told telepathically to take a photo of the sky. I didn't see or hear anything- You look at the photo and there are tons of craft in the photo! Another time I was walking at the park and again was told to take a photo-And this boomerang looking craft is in the photo 2012 After that intense experience I went looking for answers as to what that love was that beamed through my entire body! And I came across a few channelers and was just thinking how amazing it would be to fly in a craft with them. Well two nights later I went to sleep and I found myself in this oval room with three very tall beings! I was sitting on this seating that goes all around this oval room.. and I was looking into space and I saw this huge explosion then this mothership just appeared!!! Biggest thing ive ever seen! So I got goosebumps on my arms and went to look down and rub them and boom! I was back in my in bed. Knowing I was just on a craft with three ET beings! Its called Astral Travel. Feb 2017 I was driving home late one night and was fidgeting with my radio when I heard in my head ACCIDENT ACCIDENT - I looked up at the road and I was reaching an intersection and there was a car stopped in my entire lane. I knew I was gonna T bone this guy and I slammed on my breaks and turned my wheel over to the side and our tires maybe touched! That was my proof that we have spirit guides with us 24-7- IF your asked can you see everything in your surroundings . You would say yes. But you would be lying. Cause you can only see 1% of the spectrum of light. Which means realities are going on all around you you just can not see it!
@@robertmarshall6638 I don’t know those Gods. They weren’t Gods they were ETs that came to earth (from the heavens) and teaches the humans at that time some great things that look like magic
Question: if we are talking about truth, AKA what is *actually* true, why aren’t we calling it ontology? I mean, there’s a difference between “p is true if it coheres with prior beliefs” and “we come to know p if it coheres with prior beliefs.” It sounds like you went from saying “here’s one way in which things can be true” (talking about truth) to saying “given what you already know about Leprachauns, you should know that that’s not true” (talking about knowledge). Unless coherence theory is a type of subjectivism (truths are true only with respect to an individual). I had this same confusion during Sam Harris’s first podcast with Jordan Peterson where they were disagreeing about what it means for something to be true and Sam said “before we can move on, we have to lay down some epistemology.” I think I’m confused on what epistemology actually means.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Just because we can't know whether some things are true doesn't change whether or not they are true. While I reject the pragmatic theory and corespondance theory I appreciate the video for laying out/teaching on what the three theories are.
I agree. Anything true is also possible. Anything impossible cannot be true. For something to be possible it must be logically coherent. So anything logically coherent can be true, we just can't know if metaphysical concepts are true unless they can collapse into 4 dimensional reality, and even then we cant be absolutely certain about their truth.
Then what is reality? You need some way to parse reality into "truth" because otherwise, the only truth is "cogito ergo sum" right? (just wanting to stimulate discussion, I have a hobbyists appreciation for philosophy)
This is the wrong approach. Truth doesn’t mean anything in physical reality. Truth is a property of language. Truth is simply an instance of coherence in a language. The quality of a specific truth depends on the quality of the language that is being used. By “language” I’m referring to something wider than the general natural language we call “English”.
1 the problem with the coherent theory of truth is that people can believe in extreme things that either diverge from common sense or harm people, in principle, people have an integral worldview system that is disconnected from the real world the problem of the correspondent theory of truth is that consciousness is a direct participant in the construction of knowledge and worldview. that the truth is not given to us in its pure form, but it is formed from information processed by consciousness. in this regard, there is a hypothesis that every person (observer) does not know reality and phenomena in essence, but only with his own interpretation (besides, consciousness has errors) question: if both theories are used to find the truth, do they level each other's problems? or can they aggravate it? 2 in deductive logic, a conclusion is considered true if the premises are true (correspondence theory) and if the form of the statement is valid (coherent theory). in this regard, the question arises: is it possible to formulate such a reasoned statement that has true prerequisites and valid form?
The sentence „I believe that reality exists“ is true because it correspond to the fact that I believe that reality exists. Sentences can not only correspond to reality but also to mental state and this is something we have direct access too. We could redefine the word „tree“ in a way that it refers to my perception instead of an entity outside of my perception. In that case my perception ensures the truth of the sentence „trees exist“. We don’t need reality for correspondence theory to work.
Great video! This helped me so much with a paper I am currently working on in my first philosophy class. I wish I would have stumbled upon your channel earlier in the semester!
My life has been this there will be truth and it will be everywhere. In dreams and thoughts. Everyone will be grounded and I don’t have to die for this to happen. Not kill.
Physics and Truth are very different things. One is verifiable, the other is an opinion based on hypothesis. Even physics is liable to be misunderstood.
The 'table' is a derived truth- a useful fiction. The table isn't fundamental; however, truth would weakly supervene on whether the table is or is not.
_Theories are usually the afflictions of impatient minds, who prefer to get rid of the study or analysis of phenomena, therefore replacing them with images, with terms unintelligible to the common man, and often only with meaningless torrential verbosity._
_If you say that there is a table in your room, it must _*_NOT_*_ be coherent with all my beliefs, it must be coherent with what you are affirming._ _If it is not coherent with what you’re saying, it’s not the Truth, but it is a Lie._ _A 99% Truth is a 100% Lie, because the Truth cannot be fractioned._ _99% Honesty is 100% dishonesty, for the same reason._
Pragmatic truth excludes itself. Truth cant be tested - truth is a determination. Ive tested and determined a truth. But i cant test if truth truely exists. Therefore i should not call something true.
SUMMARY: 1. Correspondence Theory of Truth -it corresponds with reality 2. Coherence Theory of Truth -it coheres with your beliefs 3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth - it works, it is used to make something work or to make something useful
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical fallacy of its truth? The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize that truth, by definition, isn't true . . . The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that an analysis is in progress. Truth infers an analysis of the probability that it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2), an inference that a truth is never 100% true. Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the exact degree that that truth was not true. Are we reaching synthesis as what is true from testing our truths OR are we killing what is true, one truth at a time?
What is with metaphysical truth, that can not be sensed, (not touch, not seen, etc).. like sin and guilt (moral statement)??.. Can a true statement in moral (like 10 commandments) is measured?.. With what parameters?... Is human only talk about relative truth or can somehow acces absolute truth?...
So what is truth? Apparently, we have the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth. So which to embrace? None of them. These are typical of the one dimensional theories traditional in philosophy to which everyone subscribes without any sufficient analysis. I suppose the closest to that correct would be correspondence. What is truth actually? This question is such a problem for those who promote one of the three above because they don’t think past the insufficient work on which their notions are founded. 1. Truth is that which is imposed by material reality upon the awareness, which also constrains and directs the nature of truth in the abstract. 2. Truth arises from the imposition of the characteristics of existents and the effects of their interactions within materiality and by our understanding of that, the logical architecture of the function of the abstract. 3. Truth can be established at any level in any context in which we question it if studied at each step in that all truths are logical extensions of those from which they arise, back to fundamental absolutes which are by definition, true. Consider an absolute truth of materiality; there can be no motion without an object (moving). We know unequivocally that there is motion for we move. We also perceive motion of other objects which when we move to their location previous, find them gone and elsewhere. There is nothing to question. Motion exists and is observable and measurable. Motion is not and cannot be a physical aspect of the object moving. It is an intangible, contingent phenomenon of the object’s existence and its physicality, linking it directly with the context in which it exists. We can measure the character of that motion, force, speed, etc., these being a product directly of that physicality of the object moving, there being a relationship between the two which is absolute. An absolute truth of abstraction would be that one cannot “appeal to truths to establish a position that denies the existence of truth”. This would be like saying “I think I am not thinking” and expect that it could ever be true, akin to defining terms in a proposition which at once denies their meaning. If we are able to process such a proposition and at the same time, determine the contradiction, it demonstrates the presence of and effect of truth only by which that would be possible. We come to know truth by two means, i.e., perception and abstraction. In terms of the former, our perceptual apparatus, traditionally accused of being subjective, we know that it is decidedly not. It is clearly “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. Consider… That we can perceive a square and a circle at all defines the absolute nature of each with regard to itself and as opposed to the other. Part of the truth of that which something is, is that which it is not. A carbon atom is just that in part for it not being at once a hydrogen atom, etc. We know that to exist at all in material reality, an existent must be finite, delineable and differentiatable from all else. Reality imposes itself, existent by existent and by the effects of their interactions upon the consciousness/awareness. We cannot be aware or be able to perceive if the materiality we do perceive does not exist in prerequisite. Thus, if we perceive (what we think is) a table in a room, the issue then is that there must be something in the room or we would perceive nothing, a table or otherwise. Truth is discovered through perception and abstraction progressively, each new understanding building on that which came before. Note….that below is quantitative. A square is definitively just that and that alone. The square cannot be confused with a circle under any circumstances. This is unequivocal. Conversely, with the circle in relation to the square. If one claims that we cannot be sure that we are perceiving an actual square or circle, he would then have to explain that which ensures that we still do not see the one for the other…”ever”. It would have to be admitted, minimally that each is distinct in a manner which defines it as such apart from the other such that they could not be one confused for the other. What is left then is whether the shape of the square we perceive, for example, is actually that which is before us. This is easily discerned by the full exercise of our visual apparatus as we “take in hand” the square and manipulate it in such a manner as to proof its shape. Additionally, we employ our other perceptual apparatus, e.g., our tactile senses. To extend the study farther, as we design and fabricate some fixture to interface with the square, we come to find that our perception of that and its literal design matches precisely with the original square in question, validating its shape as such, adding to our knowledge of the truth of its configuration (done once, we need never do this again, knowing that our perception of a square is the truth we thought). So too with the circle. Then, in expansion of this knowledge of the truth of these shapes, we extend the square and circle in their z axes and find that the square becomes a rectangular box and the circle a cylinder. We thus see truths in extension of those original. This is applied throughout our perception of the existence we must navigate daily. If we see a tree and a mouse, like the square and circle, we cannot mistake the one for the other. It is not possible. This is quantitative. That one might find the tree interesting or beautiful and another not, is qualitative, i.e., subjective. We can see the quantitative and qualitative aspects of perception blend in some measure in some contexts which can give rise to a measure of pollution of the truth in terms of the extent of its effect. Suppose two people see a man run from a store (quantitative) in a downtown area, (he) turn (ing) to see them (quantitative) then turn (ing) around and run (ning) away (quantitative). Suppose also that one of those in witness is bigoted against Hispanics. When queried by police about what each saw, one might say that a white man (qualitative) ran from the store, saw them then turned and ran the other way. The other might say that it was not a white man but a Hispanic (qualitative). The prejudice of the latter would have intruded upon his accounting of the event. This is problematic but it is still truth that each saw a man…leave a store…turn to see them…then turn and run away all of which are quantitative. The discernment of truth then is a simple matter of deconstructing the nature of the events in a context as per the interactions of the existents involved to see what aspects are logically, necessarily so as opposed to those which are deceptively seen as such. Note that even in the realm of ideas and concepts and as these effect processes such as the scientific method, truth is clearly discerned. The Raven’s Paradox for example, assumes an hypothesis that all ravens are black and by that that the purported, logical equivalent statement that all non-black things are not ravens, supports this hypothesis (a red shoe or a white train then would support the hypothesis that all ravens are black). The truth of this however is that it does not. Proper investigation shows clearly that the statement that “all non-black things are not ravens” is NOT a logical equivalent of “all ravens are black, but a contingent phenomenon/proposition, wholly dependent for its truth upon the truth of the assumption that all ravens are black and thus, logically necessary conceptually. It thus does nothing to support the original proposition that all ravens are black. The above can be summed up by the following; 1. Truth is absolute. Truth is not relative, but contextual. Truth (of materiality and of the abstract) is an imposition upon our awareness/consciousness which our perceptual apparatus perceives in a wholly objective manner, the relationship between the two, quantitative. - Our visual/perceptual apparatus, for example is composed of our eyes, wholly objective bio mechanisms which obey the laws of physics in every bit an objective manner as any sub atomic particle. - Our optic nerve as well. - Our brain (as an organ) which in an ever more complex function must present that data transmitted to it in a template manner that the mind, whatever that is (it is intangible) such that it will make sense as per the scene which is the subject of that transmission. All that in the above is 100% objective and not subjective. 2. The truth of the abstraction is equally absolute as it is a product of or a reflection of the material reality spoken of above. Thought and the logic which is its means cannot contradict itself any more than can material existents. The ravens paradox mentioned above demonstrates. I don’t understand all of the soul searching and the sighs of depression by those who entertain this matter. It just ain’t that complicated and if one were willing to accept that these realities are not of our construction or formulation but already there for us to discover, he would be at peace. Note that all of the great paradoxes are resolvable for the truth of our material reality does not permit such conceptual contradictions. In fact, our languages which are reflections of the truths of reality are incapable of expressing them in a manner which might protect them from analysis and invalidation.
@@ToriKo_ it is difficult to reduce the proposition. it makes perfect sense but you will have to read it. Actually, i think you would enjoy doing so. I would ask you to try. Thanks.
@@jamestagge3429 I can’t get passed the second paragraph were u start numbering stuff, although I think I might agree with ur first paragraph. It seems like you have a very materialistic/physicalist (?) world view, which kind of short circuits my brains when you are also talking about truth.
15:23 is says truth is tentative-no absolutes but that's clearly false because as Hermes Tri said once 'absolute truth is truth without falsehood.' and that's just logically sound and in only incorporated the duality of truth and falsehood. It's the same as saying as what I created once 'absolute truth is the truth and only the truth'
Does truth necessarily represent reality? If yes, can truth represent reality without propositions? If no, can propositions represent reality without an assigned true value (1) and a false value (0). If no, we know that truth fundamentally regards a reference point to reality. I suspect that truth is the internally-coherent collection of well-justified propositions
Thanks for the video, Prof! By the way, are you Filipino? I’m a Fil-Am MA-Phil student (no pun intended) and it would be so cool if you were. Thanks once more!
i been christ flying around almsot 30 times now in my dreams saying im gary christ , thats lucid truth flying also is amazing by the way and devil is huge.
If you hold a remote controller in your hand & you dont have anything to control it with or the batteries have run out, is it a remote controller, as it doesn't fulfill the function it was made for? When is a cup, not a cup, for instance is a bowl a cup, how much can you morph one object until it no longer remains in that class of objects? If you have a table with a central stand, is it still a table, what about a box that you can put your plates on & eat from? It's not true that you had me read William James for a day! Regarding Pragmatism (is that the right one as there are apparently two types), the London map of the underground is a great example of something being wrong but useful. Is it an absolute that truth is tentative? With your God example you left out a couple of words that I feel are quite necessary, rather than "then I guess it's true!" better "then I guess it's true FOR THEM!"
Everything can be denied. Most can say death is a truth but I have another idea. Everything that is said and has been found out to be true is the truth. One specific thing can be denied but the whole can also not be denied. The opposite of I think there fore I am.
Any word for truth other than the word /truth/ itself would be a substitution, equally valid only if the new word had exactly the same meaning, so you need theories of truth to be convergent on a commonly identified definition and meaning. (truth is truth, to say it "a la Wittgenstein", and the tautology would be totally similar using a language other rhan English, generally speaking) . I think what's to be noted is that none of the theories of truth discussed here is false (certainly not entirely false, even if it is debatable that they be entirely true in all possible respects).
While I value pragmatism deeply, I don't think it is a theory of truth at all. A basic criterium of truth ought to be "that which cannot be wrong". We should not allow for a statement to be true at one time, and false at another time, as it leads to blatant contradictions. Why can't we allow truth to be simply the content of phenomenal experience at any given time? No pretence of correspondance to an external "objective" reality, no propositional content intending to describe it. The content of consciousness exists. It might not be much, but it provides a sufficient bedrock for the assessment of the truth value of everything else, given a sufficiently thorough theory, I believe.
_The Truth must not be coherent with my beliefs. Normally it’s quite the contrary. The Truth mustn’t be coherent with what I believe, the Truth must be coherent with what you say. If what you say is incoherent with reality you are telling people Lies._ _If you tell me something, and I don’t know you, why should I assume or believe that what you’re telling me is the Truth.?_
The definition "Truth is what works" or "truth is what can be used" doesn't make sense. I can make use of a lie of it were to benefit me. This doesn't make the lie true. I also disagree with the problem of the correspondence theory of truth. Just because what we know is interpreted through the senses, does not necessarily mean everything we interpret is subjective. We're creating a subjective interpretation of an Objective "Thing" which can be experienced by the subjective sense. Regardless of how we perceive that object, the object is still there, interacting with other things, regardless of who or what is perceiving it, or even how its being perceived. A bee see's UV color spectrum, I don't. We both see the flower, and therefor know it is true that the flower exists. That's not subjective. Truth is what is. There was never really a problem introduced to the correspondence theory. Excellent video though, you are a great with your lectures.
You are missing the point of the pragmatic theory of truth; the point of the pragmatic theory of truth is that "truth" is not what is important. "Truth" is not what we should be interested in, because we don't actually know the way the world is any more than a bee does. We do however know what convinces us, i.e. we know how to "verify". As such "verification" is all we should be talking about. You are correct in that using a lie to your benefit does not make the lie true. But, doesn't that imply that you know its a lie? How do you know its a lie - because you have verified it to be a lie. Right? We never know "truth". We only know what convinces us; we only know verification. Similarly, no one is saying that "everything we interpret is subjective". Pragmatists are saying that, if you are asked "How do you know what you claim to know?", you have no choice but to respond in terms of your method of verification. In your example, does the flower actually exist? Probably - there is no reason to think it doesn't. But so what? The existence of the flower is not what makes your knowledge of it "true", for that task is performed by your method of verification, in this case, your senses. But all this is ok. It doesn't change anything about us or how we interact with "the world". It just means we don't need to elevate a notion of "Truth" to the realm of metaphysics, which is what the "correspondence theory" is.
@@ericb9804 really appreciate your explanation. I was about to comment on the pragmatic theory's concept of "what works" and had the same thought so thanks a lot.
If "truth" is what "works" why not simply say it works instead of it is "true". Truth means it corresponds to reality. Reality is how things are regardless of opinion, objectively. Generally people assume reality to be coherent. It however is a mistake to think something is true, just because it corresponds with your belief-system. To say it is pragmetic, to call something objectively the case, just because it seemingly works according to some group consensus, is ridiculous. Please, stop calling pragmatic theories of truth something notable. Science is based on academic skepticism, that's what you describe, but merely in a less coherent and precise manner. They agree you cannot reach truth, but converge to it.
No, I don't even think the pragmatic theory of truth makes sense, I believe Correspondence theory is actually correct and the problem pointed out with it in this video, isn't actually a problem. The problem basically says "everything is subjective, and nothing is objective", We create subjective experiences out of objective things which can be experienced. Coherence theory is wrong because it basically says there's no such thing as objective truths, which is a paradox of an argument in itself. You can't defend the idea that objective truth doesn't exist without defending the idea with objective reason
Fantastic video!! I loved the way you sort of think through the explanations. I mean, you are not just reciting the theories, you are actively exploring them. The video felt like a conversation. Loved that.
Here's the textbook for our class: "Venturing into Philosophy" - amzn.to/3nPnJSA. If you're finding these videos useful and would like to help me produce more content for UA-cam, please consider becoming a Patreon: www.patreon.com/ProfG. Thanks!
Sir please, why didn't you upload the next video which continues above video? At the end of this video you promised to explain neu-pragmatic theory, I was looking for it but I couldn't find it on your channel😒
thank you so much for this lecture. I wish I had you as my professor, you are so fun to watch. Much love from the Netherlands
I suspect the Nature of God's Truth is so very Sacramental that people are often confused by their "Absolute Perception of Truth". For example, God never had any intention for Abraham to actually kill Isaac. God even sent His Angel to stop Abraham from killing. God was "testing" Abraham.
People of the Abrahamic Faith typically see this as a Test. Yet different kinds of Atheists see this differently.
Atheists Schooled in the Philosophy of Spinoza like Einstein see this as a Test, too.
I suspect Atheists Schooled in the Philosophy of Dawkins tend to see this as a Lie.
Some atheists go so far as to see the very nature of faith complete tomfoolery, much like Calvinism.
Cessationism is a doctrine that spiritual gifts such as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing ceased with the Apostolic Age. The doctrine was developed in the reformation and is particularly associated with the Calvinists.
Some aspects of Calvinism are wrong. God can open all of us to the Gifts of the Spirit if He chooses. Many people reject the Gifts of the Spirit because they do not want to do the necessary work. God knows in advance who will do His work.
Occam’s Razor would suggest the Correspondence Theory of Truth should be the pick.
a very clear lecture, thanks for doing this
I love the way the lesson was executed. Its made simple and easy to understand
Very helpful and insightful. Thank you
You're very welcome.
Hi "Correspondence with reality" is the best definition of truth. The argument that we have no direct interaction with reality is incorrect. If a sign says "beware edge of cliff" and I say to myself "that is not reality, that is my mind interacting with my mental construction of reality", and keep walking until fall off the cliff, then my broken legs will tell me "that sign was reality". There's no arguing with broken legs.
Philosophically, what just happened is that rather than our minds only being indirect perceivers of reality, reality has forced itself onto our mind. Reality can only do this if it is more real than our minds, and more powerful. There's no room for Berkeley's solipsism, and as Dr. Sam Johnson said as he kicked the stone, "I refute Berkeley thus". It's all been discussed 250 years ago.
Coherence fails as a definer of truth because any group of liars can coordinate their lies to "cohere", but that doesn't make them "truth", because lies have nothing to do with truth.
Pragmatism is a little better, but as the physicists found after Einstein discovered relativity, although Newton's classical mechanics still worked pragmatically in most situations, it was no longer "the truth".
From a moral perspective, honesty is an ongoing commitment to truth that self corrects by abandoning non-truth, until only the correspondence with truth remains. Therefore honesty is truthfulness is truth. Cheers, P.R.
How is reality forcing itself onto your mind? That seems like a fallacy in saying the severity of an experience gives way to any less tenuous a connection with reality. You might look down and your eyes would see a bone poking out of your leg and blood spurting out, and your nervous system would flood your brain with messages saying that your body is in a bad condition (pain). If anything this works better to the merit of pragmatism as I see it. The cliff edge being nearby is true insofar as I need it to be true to maintain the good condition of my body, as I see it.
@@e.lattimer2238Hi e.lattimer. As soon as we open our eyes reality f. floods in. Eyes evolved so this could happen, and the more efficient the eyes, the more accurate the corresponding image of reality we form in our minds. Reality is not only physical existence but also information, a non-material reality. As religious people say, "as you think in your heart, so you become". That makes thought and imagination reality too, and also information. Cheers, P.R.
Complete truth is in contradiction with the existence of conscious entities.
@@someonenotnoone Hi s.n.n. What reasoning do you offer to support your statement? Cheers, P.R.
Isnt coherence theory circular reasoning?
If i take it to first principles, whatever i decided was truth first, determines all other truth.
Its not a statement about truth, its a statement about yourself.
Probably is circular but really makes sense that humans base each truth based on previous truths. Got me thinking about mathematics; we just decided to accept the axioms as true and so we can decide other truths/proofs based on them
Our definition of truth is already presupposes an existence of truth.
Inescapable circularity on a meta level
Amazing Lecture, Your an amazing Professor. This video was so helpful and intriguing to hear you speak on.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Truth is the foundational of good, honest, and right living. If truth is tentative and changing all the time, then it never was truth in the first place.
I think what you're referring to is big T Truth. I believe this video is more about little t truths. Concepts like justice, beauty, goodness, aren't really addressed very well by these concepts insofar as I can tell. It's more just about how we can sensibly talk about our observations in the world, as opposed to those things which are external to it. I do agree with your sentiment, though.
Your comment on Correspondence Theory being problematic because of the ability to verify claims doesn’t take away from Correspondence Theory being correct. It just means we cannot verify what’s behind the wall but logically we can deduce that there is a “behind the wall”.
Isn’t that still a severely limited use-case compared to other methods?
Is there a different category where you say an object exists when it is not subject to variations in truth perception? For example if we all push against a wall we are likely to be met with resistance and this "fact" could not be circumvented by any particular person's subjective opinion or experience
Thank you so much for this!! You make everything easy to understand and enjoyable! ❤
I still think that the correspondence theory of truth is the definition of truth that is closes to how most people use the word „truth“.
And this is all a good definition really has to do.
Our senses are maybe not perfect but there are enough to justify the belief and if the belief actually correspond to the entity then it is JTB-knowledge.
We can also make statements about our own mind like „I believe that apples exist“ and this statement is only true if it correspond to the fact that I believe that there are apples and this is something I can actually know with absolute certainty.
Honesty is the ultimate Truth.
Thank you so much for the video so interactive and easy to understand
Un approccio eccessivamente semplificato secondo gli standard europei
Thank you for a clear and concise lesson on Truth.
I think my understanding of truth is closest to pragmatism. I feel like there's a problem with the coherence kind of truth, in that it can't work as an epistemological framework for _any particular_ truth, because something can only be true if it is coherent with other truths. Surely, it could only work to append new truths to already established ones? And what if something is true *and* is not coherent with other things previously thought to be "true"? Anyway, great video; I learned a lot.
Very useful for me, summed up majority of my semester 2 syllabus of these 3 theories of truth, very well defined and understandable explanations..
Thank you professor
This is great! Thank you so much, you explained everything so well!
This helpped me get an A on my religion test which lead to an A in the whole courseeeee!!!
11:11 This was a very interesting question, thanks! For me there's a few reasons I want to know the truth
1. I have strong terminal curiosity to seek out unknown truth for the sake of seeking it out
2. I have a strong terminal respect and love for the truth, safeguarding it, and curating it.
3. I want to do things for my own purposes
4. I want to know what meta-ethical theories are true
4a. If moral realism is true then I want to know what ethical theories and or applied ethical judgments are true because I want to be a good person
Hi Moral realism is true because the ethic of HONESTY always corresponds with that which is true. If something turns out to be false, then HONESTY adapts by discarding things known to be false. Cheers, P.R.
Delightfully enlightening
This is the best explanation of epistemology
It is clear and relevant information's! Thank you so much Sir.
this helped me so much right now I am currently working on a mid term for philosophy 😁 thank you so much
Interesting and insightful. Friendly personality and excellent explanations. Good format and presentation of this lecture.
What a great lecture!!! Appreciate your explanation!!
_The Truth is not a concrete object, like the table is in the room. The Truth is an Individual Spiritual Experience. The Truth is unique, and can be found in the heart of every living being, but just trough an Individual Spiritual Experience._
There are plenty of scientific theories that worked but turned out to be false. 2 examples off the top of my head are Newtonian gravity/Einstein's theory and the theory of phlogiston. A great book I recommend is "The structure of the scientific revolution" by Thomas Kuhn.
If you read that book, you would know that a theory does not have the presumption nor the goal of being "true". A theory is valued based on his functionality, on how well can it predict empyrical data that are detectable.
Thank you very much for making this video. It does really helps me a lot.
Thanks! Helpful. Appreciated. "Truth is tentative - no absolutes." Is that an absolute statement? Sounds like it to me. If so, isn't there a contradiction here?
thank you so much!!! I've learned a lot and my understanding from this vid would for sure be really helpful for my class reporting :D
You're very welcome! Good luck with your class.
Thanks you explained it well
Thank you so much! You've explained it all so well! :)
hey professor have at it with these physical experiences ive had. that took me from believing that our souls go on to KNOWING that our souls go on. I’ve been a therapist since 2002- In 2011 One of my clients was going through a really hard time with a break up and just really depressed- well 20min into the session I felt this overwhelming presence of LOVE beaming through every cell of my being and then there was an instant download into my mind.. (telepathic communication) I am a family member that has passed away and I am here to love and support him- so I asked him, do you have any family relatives that have passed away... There was silence for a minute and then he said yeah my dad- In that moment I was shown that we never stop existing and that we are truly magnificent beings !
After that experience I started getting telepathic communication telling me to take a photo of the sky . I was driving and was told telepathically to take a photo of the sky. I didn't see or hear anything- You look at the photo and there are tons of craft in the photo! Another time I was walking at the park and again was told to take a photo-And this boomerang looking craft is in the photo
2012
After that intense experience I went looking for answers as to what that love was that beamed through my entire body! And I came across a few channelers and was just thinking how amazing it would be to fly in a craft with them. Well two nights later I went to sleep and I found myself in this oval room with three very tall beings! I was sitting on this seating that goes all around this oval room.. and I was looking into space and I saw this huge explosion then this mothership just appeared!!! Biggest thing ive ever seen! So I got goosebumps on my arms and went to look down and rub them and boom! I was back in my in bed. Knowing I was just on a craft with three ET beings! Its called Astral Travel.
Feb 2017
I was driving home late one night and was fidgeting with my radio when I heard in my head ACCIDENT ACCIDENT - I looked up at the road and I was reaching an intersection and there was a car stopped in my entire lane. I knew I was gonna T bone this guy and I slammed on my breaks and turned my wheel over to the side and our tires maybe touched! That was my proof that we have spirit guides with us 24-7-
IF your asked can you see everything in your surroundings . You would say yes. But you would be lying. Cause you can only see 1% of the spectrum of light. Which means realities are going on all around you you just can not see it!
@@robertmarshall6638 God is not some he or she in the sky God is all things in existence, so sure it’s a he she it it’s all of those things
@@robertmarshall6638 🙏
@@robertmarshall6638 I don’t know those Gods. They weren’t Gods they were ETs that came to earth (from the heavens) and teaches the humans at that time some great things that look like magic
The truth is what you really believe and value must be true, if!
I enjoyed listening to you sir, thank you so much for this
Really helpful sir ✌️😇keep up the good work👏
Thank you for an awesome, clear lecture! :)
i think that your explaining of the cat in the room example is a coresponding view of knowledge not a coherance
Thank you sir❤️
Question: if we are talking about truth, AKA what is *actually* true, why aren’t we calling it ontology? I mean, there’s a difference between “p is true if it coheres with prior beliefs” and “we come to know p if it coheres with prior beliefs.” It sounds like you went from saying “here’s one way in which things can be true” (talking about truth) to saying “given what you already know about Leprachauns, you should know that that’s not true” (talking about knowledge). Unless coherence theory is a type of subjectivism (truths are true only with respect to an individual).
I had this same confusion during Sam Harris’s first podcast with Jordan Peterson where they were disagreeing about what it means for something to be true and Sam said “before we can move on, we have to lay down some epistemology.” I think I’m confused on what epistemology actually means.
Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Just because we can't know whether some things are true doesn't change whether or not they are true. While I reject the pragmatic theory and corespondance theory I appreciate the video for laying out/teaching on what the three theories are.
I agree. Anything true is also possible. Anything impossible cannot be true. For something to be possible it must be logically coherent. So anything logically coherent can be true, we just can't know if metaphysical concepts are true unless they can collapse into 4 dimensional reality, and even then we cant be absolutely certain about their truth.
Then what is reality? You need some way to parse reality into "truth" because otherwise, the only truth is "cogito ergo sum" right? (just wanting to stimulate discussion, I have a hobbyists appreciation for philosophy)
This is the wrong approach. Truth doesn’t mean anything in physical reality. Truth is a property of language. Truth is simply an instance of coherence in a language. The quality of a specific truth depends on the quality of the language that is being used.
By “language” I’m referring to something wider than the general natural language we call “English”.
True Enough...
At the end of the video you mention the next lecture but I can't seem to find it. Could you please post the link to it?
I'm looking through his other videos, but they seem to be out of order, even on the playlist :(
Thank you for this lecture, my professor didn’t go over this subject, but it will be in our exam so I’m glad I found this
Thanks, very helpful
1 the problem with the coherent theory of truth is that people can believe in extreme things that either diverge from common sense or harm people, in principle, people have an integral worldview system that is disconnected from the real world
the problem of the correspondent theory of truth is that consciousness is a direct participant in the construction of knowledge and worldview. that the truth is not given to us in its pure form, but it is formed from information processed by consciousness. in this regard, there is a hypothesis that every person (observer) does not know reality and phenomena in essence, but only with his own interpretation (besides, consciousness has errors)
question: if both theories are used to find the truth, do they level each other's problems? or can they aggravate it?
2 in deductive logic, a conclusion is considered true if the premises are true (correspondence theory) and if the form of the statement is valid (coherent theory).
in this regard, the question arises: is it possible to formulate such a reasoned statement that has true prerequisites and valid form?
The sentence „I believe that reality exists“ is true because it correspond to the fact that I believe that reality exists.
Sentences can not only correspond to reality but also to mental state and this is something we have direct access too.
We could redefine the word „tree“ in a way that it refers to my perception instead of an entity outside of my perception.
In that case my perception ensures the truth of the sentence „trees exist“.
We don’t need reality for correspondence theory to work.
9:20 appeal to emotion does not a make a theory wrong
it seems to me that these three theories are not necessarily inconsistent with one another?
Helpful video! Shame that the pragmatic theory got special treatment though. There are plenty of criticisms of it as well!
Thank you very much sir...love from India 🇮🇳
Great video! This helped me so much with a paper I am currently working on in my first philosophy class. I wish I would have stumbled upon your channel earlier in the semester!
My life has been this there will be truth and it will be everywhere. In dreams and thoughts. Everyone will be grounded and I don’t have to die for this to happen. Not kill.
Thankyou prof hoping more videos u provide for more knowledge keep safe 🥰😙
Physics and Truth are very different things. One is verifiable, the other is an opinion based on hypothesis.
Even physics is liable to be misunderstood.
💯 you explained that well
The 'table' is a derived truth- a useful fiction. The table isn't fundamental; however, truth would weakly supervene on whether the table is or is not.
I really don't understand the distinction of Coherence Theory and Pragmatic Theory 😢
So helpful ❤❤..
_Theories are usually the afflictions of impatient minds, who prefer to get rid of the study or analysis of phenomena, therefore replacing them with images, with terms unintelligible to the common man, and often only with meaningless torrential verbosity._
_If you say that there is a table in your room, it must _*_NOT_*_ be coherent with all my beliefs, it must be coherent with what you are affirming._ _If it is not coherent with what you’re saying, it’s not the Truth, but it is a Lie._ _A 99% Truth is a 100% Lie, because the Truth cannot be fractioned._ _99% Honesty is 100% dishonesty, for the same reason._
Pragmatic truth excludes itself.
Truth cant be tested - truth is a determination. Ive tested and determined a truth. But i cant test if truth truely exists. Therefore i should not call something true.
Thank you
SUMMARY:
1. Correspondence Theory of Truth
-it corresponds with reality
2. Coherence Theory of Truth
-it coheres with your beliefs
3. Pragmatic Theory of Truth
- it works, it is used to make something work or to make something useful
A lie can be useful and can work.
(contradiction of pragmatics)
Thank you!
Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical
fallacy of its truth?
The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize
that truth, by definition, isn't true . . .
The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that
an analysis is in progress.
Truth infers an analysis of the probability that
it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2),
an inference that a truth is never 100% true.
Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the
exact degree that that truth was not true.
Are we reaching synthesis as what is true
from testing our truths OR are we killing
what is true, one truth at a time?
Brilliant!
thank you sir
thank you😊
What is with metaphysical truth, that can not be sensed, (not touch, not seen, etc).. like sin and guilt (moral statement)??..
Can a true statement in moral (like 10 commandments) is measured?..
With what parameters?...
Is human only talk about relative truth or can somehow acces absolute truth?...
So what is truth? Apparently, we have the correspondence, coherence and pragmatic theories of truth. So which to embrace? None of them. These are typical of the one dimensional theories traditional in philosophy to which everyone subscribes without any sufficient analysis. I suppose the closest to that correct would be correspondence.
What is truth actually? This question is such a problem for those who promote one of the three above because they don’t think past the insufficient work on which their notions are founded.
1. Truth is that which is imposed by material reality upon the awareness, which also constrains and directs the nature of truth in the abstract.
2. Truth arises from the imposition of the characteristics of existents and the effects of their interactions within materiality and by our understanding of that, the logical architecture of the function of the abstract.
3. Truth can be established at any level in any context in which we question it if studied at each step in that all truths are logical extensions of those from which they arise, back to fundamental absolutes which are by definition, true.
Consider an absolute truth of materiality; there can be no motion without an object (moving). We know unequivocally that there is motion for we move. We also perceive motion of other objects which when we move to their location previous, find them gone and elsewhere. There is nothing to question.
Motion exists and is observable and measurable.
Motion is not and cannot be a physical aspect of the object moving. It is an intangible, contingent phenomenon of the object’s existence and its physicality, linking it directly with the context in which it exists.
We can measure the character of that motion, force, speed, etc., these being a product directly of that physicality of the object moving, there being a relationship between the two which is absolute.
An absolute truth of abstraction would be that one cannot “appeal to truths to establish a position that denies the existence of truth”. This would be like saying “I think I am not thinking” and expect that it could ever be true, akin to defining terms in a proposition which at once denies their meaning. If we are able to process such a proposition and at the same time, determine the contradiction, it demonstrates the presence of and effect of truth only by which that would be possible.
We come to know truth by two means, i.e., perception and abstraction. In terms of the former, our perceptual apparatus, traditionally accused of being subjective, we know that it is decidedly not. It is clearly “quantitatively objective” and only “qualitatively subjective”. Consider…
That we can perceive a square and a circle at all defines the absolute nature of each with regard to itself and as opposed to the other. Part of the truth of that which something is, is that which it is not. A carbon atom is just that in part for it not being at once a hydrogen atom, etc. We know that to exist at all in material reality, an existent must be finite, delineable and differentiatable from all else.
Reality imposes itself, existent by existent and by the effects of their interactions upon the consciousness/awareness. We cannot be aware or be able to perceive if the materiality we do perceive does not exist in prerequisite. Thus, if we perceive (what we think is) a table in a room, the issue then is that there must be something in the room or we would perceive nothing, a table or otherwise. Truth is discovered through perception and abstraction progressively, each new understanding building on that which came before. Note….that below is quantitative.
A square is definitively just that and that alone.
The square cannot be confused with a circle under any circumstances. This is unequivocal.
Conversely, with the circle in relation to the square.
If one claims that we cannot be sure that we are perceiving an actual square or circle, he would then have to explain that which ensures that we still do not see the one for the other…”ever”. It would have to be admitted, minimally that each is distinct in a manner which defines it as such apart from the other such that they could not be one confused for the other. What is left then is whether the shape of the square we perceive, for example, is actually that which is before us. This is easily discerned by the full exercise of our visual apparatus as we “take in hand” the square and manipulate it in such a manner as to proof its shape. Additionally, we employ our other perceptual apparatus, e.g., our tactile senses. To extend the study farther, as we design and fabricate some fixture to interface with the square, we come to find that our perception of that and its literal design matches precisely with the original square in question, validating its shape as such, adding to our knowledge of the truth of its configuration (done once, we need never do this again, knowing that our perception of a square is the truth we thought). So too with the circle. Then, in expansion of this knowledge of the truth of these shapes, we extend the square and circle in their z axes and find that the square becomes a rectangular box and the circle a cylinder. We thus see truths in extension of those original. This is applied throughout our perception of the existence we must navigate daily.
If we see a tree and a mouse, like the square and circle, we cannot mistake the one for the other. It is not possible. This is quantitative.
That one might find the tree interesting or beautiful and another not, is qualitative, i.e., subjective.
We can see the quantitative and qualitative aspects of perception blend in some measure in some contexts which can give rise to a measure of pollution of the truth in terms of the extent of its effect. Suppose two people see a man run from a store (quantitative) in a downtown area, (he) turn (ing) to see them (quantitative) then turn (ing) around and run (ning) away (quantitative). Suppose also that one of those in witness is bigoted against Hispanics. When queried by police about what each saw, one might say that a white man (qualitative) ran from the store, saw them then turned and ran the other way. The other might say that it was not a white man but a Hispanic (qualitative). The prejudice of the latter would have intruded upon his accounting of the event. This is problematic but it is still truth that each saw a man…leave a store…turn to see them…then turn and run away all of which are quantitative.
The discernment of truth then is a simple matter of deconstructing the nature of the events in a context as per the interactions of the existents involved to see what aspects are logically, necessarily so as opposed to those which are deceptively seen as such. Note that even in the realm of ideas and concepts and as these effect processes such as the scientific method, truth is clearly discerned. The Raven’s Paradox for example, assumes an hypothesis that all ravens are black and by that that the purported, logical equivalent statement that all non-black things are not ravens, supports this hypothesis (a red shoe or a white train then would support the hypothesis that all ravens are black). The truth of this however is that it does not. Proper investigation shows clearly that the statement that “all non-black things are not ravens” is NOT a logical equivalent of “all ravens are black, but a contingent phenomenon/proposition, wholly dependent for its truth upon the truth of the assumption that all ravens are black and thus, logically necessary conceptually. It thus does nothing to support the original proposition that all ravens are black.
The above can be summed up by the following;
1. Truth is absolute.
Truth is not relative, but contextual.
Truth (of materiality and of the abstract) is an imposition upon our awareness/consciousness which our perceptual apparatus perceives in a wholly objective manner, the relationship between the two, quantitative.
- Our visual/perceptual apparatus, for example is composed of our eyes, wholly objective bio mechanisms which obey the laws of physics in every bit an objective manner as any sub atomic particle.
- Our optic nerve as well.
- Our brain (as an organ) which in an ever more complex function must present that data transmitted to it in a template manner that the mind, whatever that is (it is intangible) such that it will make sense as per the scene which is the subject of that transmission.
All that in the above is 100% objective and not subjective.
2. The truth of the abstraction is equally absolute as it is a product of or a reflection of the material reality spoken of above.
Thought and the logic which is its means cannot contradict itself any more than can material existents. The ravens paradox mentioned above demonstrates.
I don’t understand all of the soul searching and the sighs of depression by those who entertain this matter. It just ain’t that complicated and if one were willing to accept that these realities are not of our construction or formulation but already there for us to discover, he would be at peace. Note that all of the great paradoxes are resolvable for the truth of our material reality does not permit such conceptual contradictions. In fact, our languages which are reflections of the truths of reality are incapable of expressing them in a manner which might protect them from analysis and invalidation.
At bro u got a tl;dr
@@ToriKo_ i have absolutely no idea what this means. say again differently?
@@jamestagge3429 tl;dr means too long; didn’t read. It’s the Internet way of asking if you have a summary or conclusion
@@ToriKo_ it is difficult to reduce the proposition. it makes perfect sense but you will have to read it. Actually, i think you would enjoy doing so. I would ask you to try. Thanks.
@@jamestagge3429 I can’t get passed the second paragraph were u start numbering stuff, although I think I might agree with ur first paragraph. It seems like you have a very materialistic/physicalist (?) world view, which kind of short circuits my brains when you are also talking about truth.
4:53 circular argument
15:23 is says truth is tentative-no absolutes but that's clearly false because as Hermes Tri said once 'absolute truth is truth without falsehood.' and that's just logically sound and in only incorporated the duality of truth and falsehood. It's the same as saying as what I created once 'absolute truth is the truth and only the truth'
The essence of the word Truth
Came immediately after the unwelcome Arrival of the Lie
James’ pragmatism is really a coherence theory, pragmatically speaking…
That’s helpful as I couldn’t recognise the difference at first!
I’m talking specifically about dreams. My life clarifies life.
_You can falsify everything you want. There is no unfalsifiable thing. So, as you have stated, “it is True when you can’t falsify it”, is false._
Does truth necessarily represent reality? If yes, can truth represent reality without propositions? If no, can propositions represent reality without an assigned true value (1) and a false value (0). If no, we know that truth fundamentally regards a reference point to reality. I suspect that truth is the internally-coherent collection of well-justified propositions
Where is the next video which continues this video? 😒
Thanks for the video, Prof! By the way, are you Filipino? I’m a Fil-Am MA-Phil student (no pun intended) and it would be so cool if you were. Thanks once more!
He sounds much better at 1.25× speed!!
Professor G............any thoughts?
i been christ flying around almsot 30 times now in my dreams saying im gary christ , thats lucid truth flying also is amazing by the way and devil is huge.
If you hold a remote controller in your hand & you dont have anything to control it with or the batteries have run out, is it a remote controller, as it doesn't fulfill the function it was made for?
When is a cup, not a cup, for instance is a bowl a cup, how much can you morph one object until it no longer remains in that class of objects?
If you have a table with a central stand, is it still a table, what about a box that you can put your plates on & eat from?
It's not true that you had me read William James for a day!
Regarding Pragmatism (is that the right one as there are apparently two types), the London map of the underground is a great example of something being wrong but useful.
Is it an absolute that truth is tentative?
With your God example you left out a couple of words that I feel are quite necessary, rather than "then I guess it's true!" better "then I guess it's true FOR THEM!"
Also send the pdf of your lecture so that students r more grateful to have uhh
Everything can be denied. Most can say death is a truth but I have another idea. Everything that is said and has been found out to be true is the truth. One specific thing can be denied but the whole can also not be denied. The opposite of I think there fore I am.
Any word for truth other than the word /truth/ itself would be a substitution, equally valid only if the new word had exactly the same meaning, so you need theories of truth to be convergent on a commonly identified definition and meaning. (truth is truth, to say it "a la Wittgenstein", and the tautology would be totally similar using a language other rhan English, generally speaking) . I think what's to be noted is that none of the theories of truth discussed here is false (certainly not entirely false, even if it is debatable that they be entirely true in all possible respects).
While I value pragmatism deeply, I don't think it is a theory of truth at all. A basic criterium of truth ought to be "that which cannot be wrong". We should not allow for a statement to be true at one time, and false at another time, as it leads to blatant contradictions.
Why can't we allow truth to be simply the content of phenomenal experience at any given time? No pretence of correspondance to an external "objective" reality, no propositional content intending to describe it. The content of consciousness exists. It might not be much, but it provides a sufficient bedrock for the assessment of the truth value of everything else, given a sufficiently thorough theory, I believe.
_The Truth must not be coherent with my beliefs. Normally it’s quite the contrary. The Truth mustn’t be coherent with what I believe, the Truth must be coherent with what you say. If what you say is incoherent with reality you are telling people Lies._ _If you tell me something, and I don’t know you, why should I assume or believe that what you’re telling me is the Truth.?_
The definition "Truth is what works" or "truth is what can be used" doesn't make sense. I can make use of a lie of it were to benefit me. This doesn't make the lie true. I also disagree with the problem of the correspondence theory of truth. Just because what we know is interpreted through the senses, does not necessarily mean everything we interpret is subjective. We're creating a subjective interpretation of an Objective "Thing" which can be experienced by the subjective sense. Regardless of how we perceive that object, the object is still there, interacting with other things, regardless of who or what is perceiving it, or even how its being perceived. A bee see's UV color spectrum, I don't. We both see the flower, and therefor know it is true that the flower exists. That's not subjective.
Truth is what is. There was never really a problem introduced to the correspondence theory.
Excellent video though, you are a great with your lectures.
You are missing the point of the pragmatic theory of truth; the point of the pragmatic theory of truth is that "truth" is not what is important. "Truth" is not what we should be interested in, because we don't actually know the way the world is any more than a bee does. We do however know what convinces us, i.e. we know how to "verify". As such "verification" is all we should be talking about.
You are correct in that using a lie to your benefit does not make the lie true. But, doesn't that imply that you know its a lie? How do you know its a lie - because you have verified it to be a lie. Right? We never know "truth". We only know what convinces us; we only know verification.
Similarly, no one is saying that "everything we interpret is subjective". Pragmatists are saying that, if you are asked "How do you know what you claim to know?", you have no choice but to respond in terms of your method of verification. In your example, does the flower actually exist? Probably - there is no reason to think it doesn't. But so what? The existence of the flower is not what makes your knowledge of it "true", for that task is performed by your method of verification, in this case, your senses.
But all this is ok. It doesn't change anything about us or how we interact with "the world". It just means we don't need to elevate a notion of "Truth" to the realm of metaphysics, which is what the "correspondence theory" is.
@@ericb9804 really appreciate your explanation. I was about to comment on the pragmatic theory's concept of "what works" and had the same thought so thanks a lot.
Perez Patricia Moore Richard Thompson Charles
I wish you were my teacher..
If "truth" is what "works" why not simply say it works instead of it is "true". Truth means it corresponds to reality. Reality is how things are regardless of opinion, objectively. Generally people assume reality to be coherent. It however is a mistake to think something is true, just because it corresponds with your belief-system.
To say it is pragmetic, to call something objectively the case, just because it seemingly works according to some group consensus, is ridiculous.
Please, stop calling pragmatic theories of truth something notable. Science is based on academic skepticism, that's what you describe, but merely in a less coherent and precise manner. They agree you cannot reach truth, but converge to it.
Does the truth of the Pragmatic theory of truth mean that the Correspondence and Coherence theories are false?
No, I don't even think the pragmatic theory of truth makes sense, I believe Correspondence theory is actually correct and the problem pointed out with it in this video, isn't actually a problem. The problem basically says "everything is subjective, and nothing is objective", We create subjective experiences out of objective things which can be experienced. Coherence theory is wrong because it basically says there's no such thing as objective truths, which is a paradox of an argument in itself. You can't defend the idea that objective truth doesn't exist without defending the idea with objective reason
My specific life not those who talk like me know me and a few other things.
8:25 anyone right? Nazis, racists, socialists, Marxists, BLM, Woke, religious etc .... right? All these people, right?
Gracias Professor