This document explores, explains, and defines the philosophical concept of truth. Through reading this, the reader should be able to gain a firmer grasp of the fine difference between what is truth and what is merely a justifiable belief.
Original Title
A Philosophical Exploration Into the Nature of Truth
This document explores, explains, and defines the philosophical concept of truth. Through reading this, the reader should be able to gain a firmer grasp of the fine difference between what is truth and what is merely a justifiable belief.
This document explores, explains, and defines the philosophical concept of truth. Through reading this, the reader should be able to gain a firmer grasp of the fine difference between what is truth and what is merely a justifiable belief.
A Philosophical Exploration into the Nature of Truth
By: Sean Naquin
For a long time, philosophers have sought after a sure method of obtaining knowledge. However, all methods so far have had their faults. In some methods, one can arrive at the correct conclusion, but that conclusion cannot be considered knowledge. This is because the conclusion could have just as likely been true even if their reasoning for it being true was in fact not the reason that it was true. An example of this is the well-known Either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston case. In this case, Brown could well be in Boston and Jones could be borrowing his Ford. However, the following scenarios are also possible: 1) Brown is in Boston, and Jones owns a Ford as well, making it both rather than one or the other and thereby making Smith correct that Bown is in Boston, but he doesn't know it. 2) Brown is not in Boston, and Jones does not own a Ford. In this case Smith is wrong if he assumes that either Jones owns a Ford or Brown is in Boston because neither is true. 3) Brown is in Boston, and Jones does not own a Ford. In this case, Smith could be right in assuming that Jones is borrowing Brown's Ford while he's in Boston. However, Smith could also be wrong in that part of his assumption. Brown could be in Boston, and Jones could be renting a Ford. In cases 1 and 2, Smith is wrong about one of the two things he thinks that he knows. In case 3 and many similar possibilities, Smith does not know that Brown is in Boston because his reasoning Jones is borrowing Brown's Ford is wrong. To further complicate the matter, Jones may assure Smith that he owns a Ford, but Jones could be lying. Alternately, Smith might be correct, and his reasoning correct. Therefore, Smith would actually know that Brown is in Boston. However, unknown to Smith, Jones could buy a Ford while Brown is still in Boston. Brown would still be in Boston, and Smith would still think he knew that Brown was in Boston, yet Smith would no longer know that Brown is in Boston because Jones now owns a Ford.
A possible solution to this dilemma of knowing how to obtain knowledge is to
remove the difference between what makes a belief justifiable and true, so they would become one-in-the-same. In this case, it would be impossible to justify a belief in something untrue. As such, anything people could justify their belief in would be true. However, this logic is circular. If something is justifiable because it is true, and true because it is justifiable, that means that people cannot know it to be true without it being true. As a result, the justification step becomes meaningless. The only part that would matter is if it is true or not. For example, if I believed the that your dog had indeed become a turtle while it was at your house and out of sight from both of us, I would sound insane. However, by the logic that justifiable belief is defined by the truth of that belief, you would be forced to acknowledge that I knew that your dog had become a turtle, if when you got home it was a now turtle. Since it is clear that I would not have known such an absurd thing to be true even if it was in that situation, perhaps there is also a problem with beliefs being justifiable merely by being true. On the other end of the spectrum, what if beliefs were justifiable regardless of how they were obtained? If that were the case, Smith could believe that Brown was in Boston because Brown was having coffee with him in Michigan. That believe would be justifiable by this definition of justifiable believe, but it would be obviously false to anyone other than Smith who somehow believes it. Therefore, this definition does not work either. In conclusion, defining the relationship between justifiable believe and truth in such a way that knowledge can be obtained with near absolute certainty is a very difficult task. While some methods of defining this relationship are far more problematic than others, there has yet to be anyone has been able to find a solution to this dilemma that cannot be defeated. Furthermore, since the nature of this dilemma is find a solution that holds true in all cases, the search for such an answer continues to this day.