You are on page 1of 5

HUMR71-110_143_1

Epistemology and Theory of Knowledge


Short Paper #1
1373 Words





The Subjectivity of Truth

A Point of View















Clint Snger
SID: 13359106
Tutorial: Thursday 11.00 12.00
clint.sanger@student.bond.edu.au

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.

You might also like