Versions of Truth, Philosophy, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Philosophy

Versions of Truth

Versions of Truth Aristotle defined truth as, “In order for something to be true, it can in no way be false”. The Pragmatists, idealists, and Realists have all formulated methods of identifying these absolute truths. The Pragmatists have come up with a method that uses subjective experience and usefulness in determining truth. For something to be a truth under the Idealist Theory of Coherence, the truth must cohere to other established truths. The Realists’ Correspondence Theory states that a truth must much the objective reality that it describes. Before understanding the principles of these three theories, I had my own method of identifying truth. There are two processes, which I use to identify truth, that depend on whether or not the truth is internal or external. I consider internal truths to be concepts and ideas relating to myself. External truths are the concepts or ideas about other things that exist in my reality, such as the truth about the weather or an event that has occurred. When identifying an internal truth, I use a process that defeats the purpose of having methods to identify truth. When it comes to truths I want to establish for myself, such as saying ‘I am in love”, I automatically consider it to be true. I often mistake my beliefs as truth. I will convince myself that I am in love and exaggerate the justification to prove to myself that I am. I let the internal truths pass the test of veracity in my mind, without really giving them a second glance with a better method. When identifying an external truth, I judge the validity of the concept through a number of non-scientific or philosophical ways that would make Aristotle roll over in his grave. I justify the truthfulness of a concept based on whether or not it seems to “far fetched”, previous knowledge I am on the subject, the credibility of the source, and the reputation of the person or idea at hand. If I were to judge the statement “it is true that the weather is hot and humid outside”, I would consider the facts that heat and humidity are not far from the experience I’ve had with Florida’s weather, whether or not the source has a history of lying over trivial things, and the history of Florida’s weather at this time period. This test would lead me to agree that the statement is truthful. There are a number of problems with my semi-Pragmatic ways of identifying truth. I am not interested in the truth; my life is built around mistruths and misperceptions. A sense of inertia keeps me from thinking too deeply into the concept of truth, and whether or not the things I accept as truth are truths. My methods of identifying truth also make truth relative. Although I am aware of my faults I refrain from changing them because I am content with the ignorance many philosophers might say I have about the concept of truth. Bibliography:

Word Count: 494