Fact of Truth

Many 20th century philosophers struggled with the question: What is Truth? As
the 1900s progressed, many people began to question the nature of truth and how
it shaped their lives. Was there any truth in the daily life of people? Was there any
truth in government, world politics or social movements? The more these
philosophers began to think of this, the view on truth began to change. Truth was
becoming less defined by observable facts and more defined by linguistic
applicability.
Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein, an Austrian 20 th Century Philosohper, wrote
a book about the nature of truth. The book was called Tractatus LogicoPhilisophicus, meaning Logical-Philosophical Treatises. The beginning of the book
was a look into Ontology, the metaphysical study of the nature of being and reality
(Ontology). Wittgenstein believes that reality is made of objects that are simple and
not analyzable. He states that language and linguistics mirror logic and objects of
the world, and that language only consists of a number of names for these objects.
In his book, Wittgenstein states that problems involving truth only come about when
people try to explain the unexplainable, or to say something that can only be
shown. He states that there are three kinds of propositions: Ones that are always
true, ones that are always false, and ones that may be true or false depending on
the outcome of other propositions. Wittgenstein believes that math and science are
not defined by truths, but rather explain truths. Math is a reflection of the way
propositions are made, and science defines and describes the truth of propositions
and holds no actual truth for itself (Tractatus).
1

Wittgenstein is not entirely correct. His views state that everything in the
world is made up by a number of prepositions. This is not a proven fact, nor can it
be proven, and the idea is disagreeable. To state that the world is merely a complex
and logical structure of ideas is not scientific or even logical. The idea suggests that
many scientific facts, such as the molecule, atom, properties of time, space and
energy, are not at all fact, but rather a set of descriptions to define a reality that the
human mind has created. This begs the question, who and what are humans? Are
they human at all, or a minds creation? Matter, exists. Scientific fact states this. It
is true. The fact of solids, liquids and gases lies on the farthest point of the Truth
Line, in Absolute Truth. It has been proven, time and time again. A doubtful truth,
and a proposition that would fit Wittgentsteins opinions would be the existence of
something outside of time, space, natural states of matter, etc. Alternate Universes,
the nature of black holes and worm holes, the relationship of time and space- these
are propositions. Ideas. Our mind can scarcely wrap itself around them. Even if
something cannot be said, it can still be thought or idealized. Truth is not relative to
linguistics in such a way as Wittgenstein believed. Linguistic invention is the act of
humans creating propositions to explain truth, not the act of truth creating linguistic
mirrors to understand itself.
Bertrand Russell, a British 20th Century Philosopher, wrote a book entitled An
Inquary into Meaning and Truth, Russell stated that through Linguistics and object
words, people could communicate non-linguistic ideas. Words are reflections and
references: they correspond directly with a concept if the presence of that concept
makes one say the word or if mention of the word brings the idea of the concept to
the mind. From these references, humans use linguistics to make propositions.
2

Russells view is that if the sentence and the references relate successfully to a fact,
then it is true. If they do not, the statement is false (Philosophical Connections).
Russells view of the world is much closer to true than Wittgensteins. Where
Wittgenstein believed that fact is a proposition that is true, Russell believed that a
proposition is true if it is a fact. While these principals seem, at first, to be very
similar, they are actually quite different. Wittgensteins world is made of
propositions, none of which can really be proven or disproven, only further
explained by science and math. Russells world is made of mathematical and
scientific truths that are proven or disproven by linguistic propositions. His view has
one major flaw, however. His Truth Line has just two points and is not a line at all,
rather two separate collections of thoughts: The first, Truth. His belief is that in one
collection, or the point on the line, there is truth. Whatever fact is proven by a
proposition, or whatever proposition is proven by a fact belongs in this collection. If
it is not proven, it belongs in the other: Falsehood. If the absence of a fact is proven
by a proposition, or a proposition is disproven by the absence of a fact, it belongs on
the point or in the collection of Falsehood. Russells Truth Line has no point or phase
or collection for something Void of both fact and fiction. He has no concept of a
proposition that cannot be proven nor disproven. This is a major flaw in his thinking.
Here is the view of New Zealander 20 th Century Philosopher, Jonathan
Bennett:
Let P be the great proposition stating the whole contingent truth about
the actual world, down to its finest detail, in respect of all times. Then the
question 'Why is it the case that P?' cannot be answered in a satisfying way.
Any purported answer must have the form 'P is the case because Q is the
case'; but if Q is only contingently the case then it is a conjunct in P, and the

offered explanation doesn't explain; and if Q is necessarily the case then the
explanation, if it is cogent, implies that P is necessary also. But if P is
necessary then the universe had to be exactly as it is, down to the tiniest
detail -- i.e., this is the only possible world.
-- Jonathan Bennett, A Study of Spinoza's Ethics

Explanatory Rationalism is the idea that there is an answer to satisfy every

Why question. Bennett believes this is not true. His answer is that there is no
explanation because you cannot prove one fact without assuming another fact is
also true (Maverick Philosopher).
Bennett is close to the truth about truth. There has to be one constant in
every equation making the result correct. It is impossible for us as humans to know
the constant, only God knows. The rest of the equation is filled with unintelligible
variables, and it is impossible for us to know which variables are fact to understand
the result.

Works Cited
"Jonathan

Bennett's

Argument

Philosopher'

N.p.,

Against

Explanatory

n.d.

Web.

Rationalism."
28

'Maverick

Apr.

2013.

<http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/01/jon
athan-bennetts-argument-against-explanatory-rationalism.html>.
"Ontology."

Wikipedia.

Wikimedia

Foundation,

n.d.

Web.

28

Apr.

2013.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology>.
"Philosophical Connections." Philosphical Connections: Russell. N.p., n.d. Web. 28
Apr.

2013.

<http://www.philosophos.com/philosophical_connections/profile_100.html>.
4

"Tractatus Logico-philosophicus." SparkNotes. SparkNotes, n.d. Web. 28 Apr. 2013.

<http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/tractatus/summary.html>.