Introduction The word truth is probably the most contested word in history. Endless wars have been fought over the true ideology, people can be stripped of their freedom when they do not speak the truth, countless relationships have broken up over the question of truth and the true faith will likely never be found. Since the ancient times philosophers have been fighting each other over what is truth. Truth is a subject of debate. In contemporary philosophical literature, there are three major theories of truth: 1. The Correspondence Theory of Truth 2. The Coherence Theory of Truth 3. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth
The Correspondence Theory is the most popular one, but all theories have their proponents and critics. However, there is another theory which is often overlooked, the Redundancy Theory. In this essay I will analyse the three popular theories of truth as well as the Redundancy Theory, specifically under the aspect of subjectivity. I will prove that truth is in fact subjective and that the three popular theories of truth lack a reasonable explanation for this fact. In addition, I will explain how the Redundancy Theory gives a better description of the subjectivity of truth. Finally, I will elaborate on how the Redundancy Theory should be altered in its position towards relation, to give it an even more complete framework.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth The Correspondence Theory is likely the oldest theory of truth. It consists of a proposition and a supporting fact. The fact, in its relationship with the proposition, confirms it as truth. This setup has been praised for its simplicity. The theory goes back to the ancient Aristotle and his refined version of Platos definition: he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false (Pojman, 2001, p. 5). But the simplicity of the Correspondence Theory might be its downfall. There are many objections to this theory. The Correspondence theory works for simple propositions (the elephant is in the garden), but as soon as propositions become more complicated, the theory loses its value. Another point of criticism its absolutism. According to the definition, a proposition is either true or false. But truth is often relative to a point of view: Example 1: There is a voice telling us to do things This might be true for the clinically insane person, but false for the majority of the population. Example 2: The traffic light is green This might be true for the person with dyschromatopsia, but false for the healthy person.
Truth is based on perception and can therefore often not be as absolute as promoted in the correspondence theory. Truth is often relative from a subjects point of view. The Coherence Theory of Truth The Coherence Theory gives a different explanation of truth. Truth is legitimated by its validity as part of a larger system of beliefs, to which it relates. This theory of truth is often criticized as being subjective, mainly from proponents of the Correspondence Theory, like Bertrand Russell. Especially because a given proposition can be as true as its negation in two different systems of beliefs. One example is the proposition there is a god, put forward by an Atheist and a devout Christian. However, as already established, truth is often subjective. This is seen as a problem by Russell, where I see it as the obvious nature of truth. Simple observations like the elephant is in the garden might be absolute in its truth, but more often, they relate to a point of view. Truth is relative. Two very important factors are space and time. Example 3: The earth is flat 1000 years ago, the Christian population would have judged that this proposition is true. The Islamic population, who by then knew that the earth is spherical, would have judged it as false. Example 4: It is impossible to travel faster than light Today, we hold this as true. In 1000 years, if mankind then still exists in a substantial way, we might judge this as false.
The truth of a proposition is based on space and time. Truth is often subjective. At first sight this would speak against the Correspondence Theory and for the Coherence Theory. The problem is that subjectivity is never properly explained in the Coherence Theory. It is more of a side effect revealed by its critics. The theory does not quite fully account for this effect in itself.
The Pragmatic Theory of Truth According to the Pragmatic Theory, a belief is true as soon as it is beneficial for achieving a goal. It can be said quite quickly, that this is a very subjective theory of truth. Truth is subjective to the person, as well as the goal of the person. While this is amicable, there is a major problem with the Pragmatic Theory: what about propositions which are not related to a goal of any kind? The Elephant is in the garden is a statement which can be true or not. What does it have to do with a relation to success though? The only goal I could think of is establishing the truth. According to the Pragmatic Theory, this would mean that a proposition is true if it is beneficial for establishing the truth, which is an infinite regress. The Pragmatic Theory fails where the Correspondence Theory shines, simple propositions.
The Redundancy Theory of Truth The Redundancy Theory deals with the problem of subjectivity in a more elegant way. It states that truth is not a property, but simply an expression to show agreement with a proposition. This allows for relativity and subjectivity. A proposition is true for a person who agrees with the proposition and false for the person who disagrees with the proposition. I cannot think of an explanation which could be more simple and yet so complete. It accounts for all kinds of propositions, no matter how simple or complex. The only problem that I have with the redundancy theory is that it states that it is not relational. In order to express agreement with a proposition, you often have to relate to your past experience or your ability to reason. Descartes described this very well when he talked about beliefs and how you have to refer to your experience and your reason (Pojman, 2001). Some truths might be reasonably self-evident, but as soon as you get into more complex systems, you have to relate to your experience. Example 5: Introducing a minimum wage is good for the economy the truth of this proposition is again subject to relativity. You relate to your past experience, whether in your personal history you found the neo-classic theory or the monopsonistic high wage doctrines more favourable. The truth of this statement is not inherently in us, compared to, for example, a belief in god, which may be inherently in us through a sixth sense. Somebody who has no experience with economics, or a young child, could not differ between truth and falsehood in this statement.
The Redundancy Theory delivers the most simple and most comprehensive description of truth. But it should be redefined in its definition towards relation, as the expression of agreement relates to experience and reason, as described by Descartes.
Conclusion I have analysed the three popular theories of truth under the aspect of subjectivity. Subjectivity is a necessary component for describing truth, as proved by the examples. I judge the Correspondence Theory as insufficient, since subjectivity is not possible within its framework. Subjectivity is possible within the Coherence Theory of Truth, but it does not properly describe it. The Pragmatic Theory simply fails due to its deficiencies when describing simple propositions. The Redundancy Theory, on the other hand, allows for a proper explanation of subjectivity, while being simple and comprehensive. However, it should be refined in its description of relation. From a personal point of view, I see especially the Correspondence Theory as an old way of thinking something is either true or false, black or white. Mankind has evolved and learned to differentiate. There are individualistic shades of grey. I crown the refined Redundancy Theory as the true theory of truth, simply because I express my agreement with it.
References
Feldman, R. (2003). Epistemology. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall.
Pojman, L. P. (2001). What can we know? An introduction to the theory of knowledge. Belmont, CA; Australia: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning
Rosenberg, A. (2005). Philosophy of science: A contemporary introduction. New York: Routledge.