The Standard of Truth
If Bob told Jill that he was a fireman, the statement would be true if Bob actually was a fireman, and he’d be lying if he wasn’t. If Jill said to Tom, that there was party planned at Mick’s tomorrow night, her statement would be true if there was indeed a party planned to take place at Mick’s tomorrow night. If Tom told Jill, that he has a degree in astro-physics, his claim would be true if, in fact, he did have a degree is astro-physics.
Truth is commonly understood to mean an idea that corresponds to the facts of reality, to the way things are; this is uncontroversial, and is generally supported by dictionary definitions of the word ‘true’. For example, the Britannica dictionary says that ‘true’ means “agreeing with the facts, not false”, and the Mirriam Webster online dictionary says ‘true’ means “being in accordance with the actual state of affairs”.
This widely accepted theory of truth reflecting the common understanding is known as the correspondence theory, and it holds that the concept of truth pertains to claims, statements, propositions or assertions that are commensurate with the facts of reality. No surprises here. And the take home point is this: in this theory of truth, and in all the statements between Bob, Jill and Tom, the implicit standard of truth is reality. In other words, reality is where we look to determine the facts, in order to determine the truth or falsity of a claim, or proposition. Sometimes the evidence is clearly visible, sometimes much less so. But reality is the standard of truth.
Here is where we immediately run into problems when we hear main stream philosophers tell us that reality isn’t real, or that it is created by thoughts, or that in anyway it is not an objective absolute. Its easy to see how people might readily adopt fanciful ideas that sound good, if they don’t know that these ideas implicitly rest on the false idea that reality is shaped by consciousness, or is in some other way not objective. Or, to put it another way, few people grasp consciously that the concept of reality being an objective absolute is the pre-supposed base of all thinking and knowledge.
So let’s be clear about the meaning of ‘reality’ in this context. We are referring to the facts of what is, or what happened, or what’s going to happen. Obviously, there is not 100% certainty with claims pertaining to the future. However, in so far as plans exist to make something happen, and, in so far as we can use cause and effect to reasonably predict that something will happen, a proposition can be considered true if such plans exist, and if (in all likelihood) something will actually happen—the ball game scheduled for next Saturday, the solar eclipse predicted next month.
In the broader sense of the word, however, the concept of ‘reality’ refers to all that exists, the totality of existence, and in this case the present moment is the implicit context. It shouldn’t be controversial to say that all the principles that we observe governing various phenomena in reality remain constant (in this contextual use of the word reality), but over time, the relative placement of things changes, and new events happen (new effects are caused).
Thus, facts are not synonymous with reality. Facts are statements about reality in a specific context—of time and space. Facts can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt what happened, and what will most likely happen in the future, but strictly, speaking reality refers to the present moment. In reality, we have jet airplane transport, but we didn’t have this 150 years ago. The Universe (all that exists) is in a constant dynamic state of change—planets spinning and moving, people growing older and wiser, trees swaying in the wind, etc. Things are constantly moving and changing according to cause and effect. But this doesn’t mean that things are not what they are in any given moment. Even in a state of change, a thing is what it is, at each and every step of the way, in a process of change or movement. That identity then, this identity now; that relationship then, this relationship now.
Reality is the totality of existence, and it is what it is, in any given moment. The specific moment, or location, being the context. Claims, statements, propositions or assertions that are commensurate with reality are true. The facts determine the context.
Returning to our original thread, the point to note here is that the correspondence theory of truth is the only one that holds reality as the standard. Now lets look at some other theories of truth, and see why they are inadequate to explain, and give meaning to, the concept. It’s revealing to note which particular standard of truth they do necessarily imply—if any?
The coherence theory of truth
The Coherence Theory of truth holds that an idea is true if it fits in with all our other beliefs without contradiction. It then coheres with all our other knowledge.
This idea has some merit, just enough to confuse the student trying to understand the concept of truth. After all, truth does fit nicely with every other piece of truth, without contradiction. Reality is, after all, one unified non-contradictory whole. Any proposition that contradicts a part of this whole, naturally stands out, and reveals itself to be false. So far so good.
However, an alleged claim of truth that were, in fact, false, could sit well alongside similarly false ideas. It may well cohere with other pieces of information that are equally false. And it could mesh in with a whole series of similarly false propositions. Would this demonstrate its truth? Clearly not.
The problem with this theory of truth is that it is not sufficiently fundamental. Corresponding to reality is a more fundamental criteria for the truth of a proposition, than its coherence with any other particular proposition.
Suppose that there are two mutually exclusive theories explaining a phenomena; they are consistent within themselves as a set of coherent ideas, yet the theories as a whole contradict one another. If one looked at just these two opposing sets of ideas, by the coherence theory of truth you would be presented with two conflicting possibilities with no means to determine which one was correct. It is only by making reference to reality (the broader context) that investigation could reveal which theory was, in fact, true.
Yes, your knowledge must ALL correlate in a non-contradictory sum. Yes, your entire mental map of reality should be consistent with itself. But most importantly, and more fundamentally, each idea or claim must correlate with reality, first! Correlating with each other will follow naturally from this.
As we have seen, the law of non-contradiction is the basic principle of all rational thinking and the number one ally of the truth seeker. But this doesn’t make coherence the standard of truth! Reality is the standard of truth because when we want to know what’s true, that’s where we must look.
The coherence theory of truth makes a mockery of the law of non-contradiction, by suggesting that anytime you hear an idea that contradicts your current thinking, you can assume it is false because it contradicts all your other present beliefs. The thinking implicitly goes like this; I have just heard a new idea, contradictions do not exist, and this particular idea contradicts everything else I know, therefore it must be wrong.
The correct approach is to use the law of non-contradiction to identify any contradictions, and then evaluate the competing arguments with reference to the facts of reality, and thus resolve the contradiction. It is reality we are aiming to map conceptually in our minds. And logically, since reality (all that exists) naturally coheres with itself and contradictions cannot exist, we know that all of our ideas will cohere with the sum of our knowledge if firstly, they each correspond to reality. Thus, correspondence with reality is the more fundamental criteria of a true proposition, not its coherence with any other proposition(s).
It should be noted that the coherence theory of truth works nicely for any group of people predisposed to controlling others and fooling them into accepting false ideas as true, under the guise of these ideas fitting in with the rest of the ideology or doctrine. It conveniently divorces the concept of truth from the facts of objective reality. Thus paving the way for false ideas to be accepted by an intellectually disarmed populous.
The proper standard of truth cannot be coherence with any particular set of ideas, without reference to some objective standard. That standard must be, objective reality.
The Pragmatic Theory
In essence, the Pragmatic Theory of truth holds that a proposition is true or false based on whether it has a useful or pragmatic application in the world. If it doesn’t, then according to this theory, it’s not true. The truth or falseness of any particular statement is allegedly a function of whether that claim, statement or proposition can be used as a model to make useful predictions about what is going to happen in the world. Its proponents argue that pragmatic truths can only be learned through interaction with the world, since we don’t discover truth by sitting alone in a room and purely thinking about things. Once again, there is just enough validity in this theory for it to look credible, on the surface.
Obviously, the truth works! The berries that are actually nutritious work at nourishing us, and the theory of how to build an electric generator that correlates with reality would be the one that successfully generates electricity! But the practicality arises out of the correlation with reality, not the other way round. An idea that contradicts the way reality is, will never work. It can’t!
This is another back to front way of conceiving the idea of truth. True ideas are practical because they work, but that doesn’t mean that a judgement of whether or not something is practical should be the standard determining its truth. For a start, according to the hierarchy of knowledge, you cannot know what works ahead of knowing what is real. Remember, our lives happen in reality, and its therefore reality that we must seek to know, and adapt to, and to accommodate, in order to live our lives successfully. First, seek to know reality by having your mental map correlate with the actual terrain. Then you will automatically discover what is practical (pragmatic). A metaphor about horses and carts springs to mind!
It is crucial to note here that liars will always regard untruth as pragmatic. Manipulators and conmen will find deception immensely pragmatic and very useful in predicting behaviour. Those wanting to control other people, and influence them to act against their own rational self-interest, would naturally consider it pragmatic to lie.
This theory of truth implicitly holds ‘agreement with a particular judgment of practicality’ as the standard of truth. Leaving open the question of who’s particular judgment. Is it the judgment of a particular political ideology, or a mystical religious doctrine? Any tyrant, world government, or oppressive religious regime could decide what is and what is not practical and therefore decide what is true. This theory of truth allows almost any atrocity to be justified by an appropriate declaration of practicality. This standard of truth, like coherence, similarly makes a nonsense out of the concept of truth, and renders it meaningless.
Consensus theory
Sadly, yet unsurprisingly, in the current post-truth era of sophistry and deception, there is even a consensus theory of truth. This is an idea based on the implicit assumption that truth is a matter of social agreements about reality, including the agreements reached by the scientific community. This theory implies that consciousness creates reality, that the will or opinions of the people determine truth. It’s a theory of truth that lends itself perfectly to supporting political agendas, so that an alleged scientific consensus on a given idea can be held as truth solely on account of numbers. The obvious example is that allegedly 97% of scientists agree that increasing CO2 levels are causing a “climate emergency”.
It should be obvious to anyone that the number of people believing an idea has no bearing on its truth—even if the numbers are true. As if water would flow uphill if a scientific consensus could be manipulated, or if enough people chose to believe it would; as if berries would change from being poisonous to nutritious if only sufficient people held it to be so.
The consensus theory of truth is a ‘collectivist’ theory of truth. Opinion polls have no bearing on the truth. Because the standard of truth cannot be the number of people believing something, one way, or the other.
Inflationary and deflationary theories
A discussion about the nature of truth would not be complete without mentioning inflationary and deflationary theories of truth. Not for any value they offer, but to serve as a warning against wasting one’s time giving them serious consideration.
These theories hold that truth is a property of propositions (so far so good) but they then get bogged down in considering the relational property that belongs to propositions. Ultimately they get lost in semantics. They represent an attempt to justify relativism. [If you are so inclined, check out the Semantic Theory of Tarski and Davidson.]
Theories such as these play around with linguistics to try and get around examples such as the liar’s paradox (which we will come to in a moment). Instead of simply acknowledging that A is A, that things are what they are, and that we must use language as best we can to clearly present and communicate ideas about reality, these philosophical contortionists prefer to try and sound credible by using obfuscating language that sounds impressive, but is ultimately destructive to the concept of truth.
Quite shockingly, these theories actually divorce the concept of truth from reality altogether. Let me give you a quote from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, on deflationary theories of truth.
“One long-standing trend in the discussion of truth is to insist that truth really does not carry metaphysical significance at all. It does not, as it has no significance on its own. A number of different ideas have been advanced along these lines, under the general heading of deflationism.” A notable example would be the Deflationary Theory of Frege and Ramsey.
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there are also axiomatic theories of truth, pluralist theories of truth, an identity theory of truth, and a revision theory of truth. But I could not find any meaningful addition to the debate in any of these.
Relativism
Often referred to as cultural relativism, relativism is more a way of thinking than a theory of truth, However, it deserves attention because it is so prevalent these days, and because it is so totally destructive to the concept of truth by divorcing it from any standard at all!
In essence, cultural relativism is the idea that all points of view are equally valid and that all truth is relative to the individual. Cultural relativism holds that there are no absolutes, it all depends on a given ‘framework of assessment’, such as local customs, cultural norms, individual preferences, etc. Therefore the truth of any claim can only be determined with reference to those specified cultural norms. Cultural relativists characteristically insist that if something is only relatively so, then there can be no framework-independent (objective) vantage point from which truth can be established.
What this amounts to is a fantastic ‘get out of jail free’ card! Any horrific action, atrocity or crime, can dodge rightful condemnation on the grounds of cultural differences, or a different frame of cultural reference. Relativism is the ultimate destruction of the concept of truth, and an escape route from justice for evil doers. Such twisted ideas can only be conceived of by those who intend to deceive.
Relativism is symptomatic of our cultural bankruptcy. When the idea that anything goes becomes acceptable—and it already is in modern philosophy—moral break down is inevitable. Its only a matter of time. Anything can be excused on the grounds of relativism.
If there are no absolutes, there is no standard of truth, period! Anything can be justified by concocting some new frame of reference and hiding within it, effectively shielded from an objective standard for the concept of right and wrong, as well as truth. According to cultural relativism, the liars and cheats are right, if their actions are considered from their perspective! All the atrocities of Hitler and the Nazis, Chairman Mao, Pol pot, and any other despotic and tyrannical leader you care to recall, can be ‘justified’ (if you can call it that) on the grounds of cultural relativism.
Sadly, in spite of the obvious nonsense of relativism in all its forms (situational relativism, moral relativism, cognitive relativism, etc), it is widely accepted by leading intellectuals today, who have to be either incompetent, or evil, or both.
Epistemologically speaking, cultural relativism sees different choices, tastes and preferences, as primaries. They are not. These are all consequences of a much more fundamental aspect of human nature. The ability to choose is one of the many consequences of the uniquely human possession of a rational faculty. Our ability to reason, to grasp logic, etc, is far more fundamental than the particular choices or preferences that individuals make. To consider choices as important fundamental differences is like saying that people who like raspberry ice cream, are one kind of person, and that people who prefer rum and raison flavour, another. This is obviously absurd. It points to the crucial importance of thinking in fundamentals—one of the principles in discerning truth that we shall examine in Section Two. For the ordinary man in the street, cultural relativism is a tragic failure in thinking, specifically, a failure to correctly identify primaries, and distinguish them from consequences. For the intellectual evil doers who created it, it is the destruction of truth.
No aspects of cultural relativism are true. Not only are they logically refutable, but they are all distortions and misinterpretations of perspectives and subjective choices, and the failure to see that subjective choices are made in a context of universal truths. The only way one could take cultural relativism seriously is by being muddled in one’s thinking, and confusing the issue of truth with perspective, and with subjective experiences and choices.
Subjective truth and objective truth
Strictly speaking, there are two kinds of facts, objective facts and subjective facts. Objective facts are those that can be experienced or verified by anyone; although they may pertain to actions or relationships between individuals, objective facts are not a function of any particular individual. For example, my car is blue; last week, I beat John in the ping pong final; the seminar is scheduled for next month. These would all fall into the category of objective facts.
On the other hand, subjective facts are those only capable of being chosen, experienced or verified by a specific individual—the individual uniquely making the choice or having the experience. For example, Andy says his favourite genre of film is Sci-fi; or, last week Jenny told me she felt lonely as she contemplated her break off with Tom. These would fall into the category subjective facts.
All of your individual preferences, what you might call your life calling or passion, your hobbies, aspirations and personal tastes, all fall under the category of subjective facts. These are things chosen by the individual, or experienced by the individual without conscious choice, and may even be changed by the individual. But at any given time the stated fact becomes an objective fact (assuming, of course, that they are not trying to mislead you).
If Tom says that spinach tastes good for him, but Jill says that is doesn’t taste good for her. This doesn’t imply that truth is subjective. What it means is that two people have different subjective experiences of eating spinach, and their stated preferences are objective facts—even if they change their minds. It is a fact for Tom (and everyone else) that Jill doesn’t like the taste of spinach, just as it’s a fact for Jill (and everyone else) that Tom does.
True ‘of’ versus true ‘for’
This is a common misunderstanding of subjective experience, and leaves many people concluding truth must be subjective. However, personal choices, once stated, are objective facts for everybody! There is no contradiction in reality when one person likes punk rock, and another person hates it. Conflicting subjective experiences can all be valid subjective facts, and no contradiction is involved.
Also, consider this. The subjective facts of your favourite colour, and how you feel about a particular issue, are facts that can be shared with others, and they may have value, but the issue of truth doesn’t strictly apply, since no one else is in a position to verify them, or disprove them. If I wanted to know if you were cold or not, or if you understood something I was telling you, I would accept your answer as true because a meaningful answer couldn’t come from anywhere else. And the issue of truth would be irrelevant in this context. But there would be no grounds for accepting your claims about events, theories or ideas outside your personal experience as true solely on the basis that you were telling me them based on your subjective experience, feeling, or opinion.
We must also remember that subjective facts can be induced into existence through lies, and both physical and emotional manipulation. If you beat someone up, you induce their subjective pain; If you incarcerate and starve them, you cause their hunger; if you lie to them you can induce their subjective fear.
And we must also bear in mind that subjective ‘truth’ is a tiny subset of the much more encompassing concept of objective truth. Reality is real, it exists, and among its vast contents are all the subjective experiences of individual people. The important distinction to make is that someone’s subjective declarations are not what determines truth on matters pertaining to objective facts outside of their personal subjective experience.
In discerning truth, we must clearly distinguish the bigger objective picture from our particular individual experience and the particular experiences of others. You can know objective facts, and you need to. You cannot know all about individual subjective experiences, and you don’t need to. According to context, we can be as certain about objective facts as we can be about the objective nature of reality. But we cannot know the contents of the minds of other men, unless they choose to share them.
The truth seeker is concerned with discerning objective facts, truth in relation to events or claims or phenomena that occur outside of any individuals consciousness, and particularly those that have a bearing on the sociopolitical context. We are concerned with connecting ideas back to their origin in objective reality.
If you find yourself talking about your personal truth or hearing someone else talk about theirs, be especially vigilant that a clear distinction is being made between subjective experience and objective facts, and that no one is implicitly denying the objective nature of reality, and deluding themselves that we all live in our own reality, with our own objective truths. We don’t!
What about perspective?
The cultural relativists say truth is all about perspective. But is it?
First we must acknowledge that the use of the word perspective in this sense is metaphorical. Perspective literally pertains to differing viewpoints of a physical object. Let’s use the metaphor to understand the relationship between perspective and truth.
Imagine a group of people sitting around an object, each of them necessarily observing it from a slightly different angle. Then suppose each of them argued that their particular visual perspective of it, and theirs alone, represented the objects true image. It’s not hard to see how silly this would be, yet this is precisely what the argument saying ‘truth is all about perspective’ amounts to. Metaphorical perspective on complex conceptual issues is different from literally regarding a physical object from different viewpoints, but the principle remains the same.
Discerning truth is an integrative process that necessarily involves gathering as many facts as possible. Each examiner of a particular proposition, claim, statement, idea or issue has a unique contextual knowledge and a unique experience to bring to bear. Two or more people may also be aware of a different subset of the total facts to be known with regard to the idea. These comprise their particular perspectives, and inform the conclusions they reach, even while they consider the same specific facts in discussion with one another. But the truth of the matter is unrelated to their perspectives.
The observers of the one physical object all have the capacity to move around it, and note the view from all angles. These can them be integrated into a non-contradictory knowledge of the all-round visual nature of the object. Similarly, and even more crucially, in discerning the truth of abstract conceptual ideas, integration must be performed to arrive at an understanding of the whole. But the facts still remain objective and unaltered by different perspectives. Truth isn’t a snapshot from one angle, or an interpretation from one particular context, its an integration.
In discussion, or debate, all perspectives have value and should be judged on their merit. Each can be examined for consistency with known facts and other perspectives, and integrated into a comprehensive picture. This is the beauty and necessity of listening to the thinking of others in the accumulation of knowledge. All perspectives can be ‘put on the table’ and any contradictions can be resolved before integrating the remaining totality to form one consistent understanding that can be shared and that must reflect reality to be considered truth.
In a free market of ideas among thinking men, meaning, in a context free of censorship, and where ideas are genuinely peer reviewed, the truth can be discerned in very complex matters. The focus of many minds is always greater than just one. In simple issues it may not be necessary, but sharing perspectives is essential in discerning truth in very complex matters. For instance, learning how the complex systems that regulate and maintain human health work, or the nature of the solar system. Metaphorically speaking the ‘view’ in both issues is so big as to benefit from many pairs of eyes observing and pointing out that which can then be verified by others.
Opinion
The truth seeker must be careful with opinions. Opinions are evaluations and judgments that are not necessarily based on facts but often on artistic or personal considerations. The word ‘opinion’ is more appropriate when referring to music tastes, favourite restaurants, colour schemes or holiday destinations. However, the term does have some merit in referring to personal interpretations of facts in discussion with others. A different opinion on what is true in a given matter can stem from differences in people’s contextual knowledge, value system, or their method of thinking. In the process of discerning truth, it can be very helpful to hear the opinions of others as long as it is understood that opinion is not what determines truth. Correlation with reality is what determines the truth of a proposition. Its also important to note that some people present their reasoned conclusions as opinions. This occasional inappropriate use of the word is another reason to value and hear all ‘opinions’. As long as it is clearly understood that it is correlation with reality that determines the truth of a proposition, as evidenced by facts.
The Liar’s Paradox
Only the correspondence theory of truth, first proposed by Aristotle some 2400 years ago, offers a satisfactory meaning for the concept and provides a satisfactory standard of truth.
Aristotle is quoted as saying…
“To say of what is, that it is not,
or of what is not that it is, is false,
while to say of what is, that it is,
and of what is not, that it is not, is true”
Back in in Ancient Greece, a student at the Megara school of philosophy, called Eubulides, was allegedly the first to challenge this theory. He raised the issue of the so-called ‘liar’s paradox’ by presenting statements such as “I am lying” or “What I am saying here is false.”
He is alleged to have said “As statements these are capable of being true or false. However, if they are true because they correspond with reality, then they are false and if they are false because they fail to correspond with reality, then they must be true. Thus, no matter what we say about the truth or falsehood of these statements, we immediately contradict ourselves.”
These amusing word games fail to acknowledge the nature and limitations of language. Just because a cunning linguist can devise ways to tie us up in clever linguistic knots by recounting meaningless sentences, doesn’t mean that reality is contradictory, or inconsistent. And it doesn’t invalidate the correspondence theory. It simply means that any speaker must try harder to clearly express their observations of reality in a non-contradictory way.
Truth and language
Language is the conceptual tool we use to categorise all that exists ‘out there’ into a conceptual form that can be ‘stored’ or ‘mapped’ in the mind. Every word in language (except proper nouns) is a concept. Some of these concepts pertain to existent things, and others pertain to relationships, and to attributes. Some concepts are very simple and others are massively complex involving integrations of many genetically antecedent concepts. But ultimately they must all refer back to some aspect(s) of reality in order to have meaning. Existence is the primary; we map it conceptually in the process of acquiring knowledge, and then we communicate our ideas to others using language.
Truth is the recognition of reality expressed in language. Reality exists, but truth doesn’t have a separate existence, only a conceptual one in the human mind. Truth only ‘exists’ as an idea, or rather a distinction, represented by a word or mental label. We then apply that label to any proposition that corresponds to the way things are.
To consider something true, is a conceptual understanding that that particular idea corresponds to facts out there in the real world. Applying the word truth to a proposition identifies it as being commensurate with reality.
Language is a set of sounds and symbols representing conceptual ideas. As Rand pointed out, it is primarily a tool of thought before it is a tool of communication. It is the means by which we label and therefore categorise all of our conceptual identifications of reality.
The imprecision of language
It is very important for the truth seeker to recognise the imprecision of language as a tool for communicating thoughts and meaning. Language is necessarily an imprecise tool because its use depends on the skill and ability of the consciousness using it to express a particular idea. You wouldn’t blame the carpenters tool kit, for the carpenters inability to construct well made furniture. It is the skill of the carpenter to know when to use each tool, and to know how to use each tool properly. It is not the responsibility of the tools! Similarly, language cannot do our communicating for us, as some people implicitly seem to expect when they ‘blame’ the limitations and imprecision of language for communication difficulties. Knowledge of how to clearly and precisely express ideas is not at all self-evident, it must be learned. The limitations of language are generally with the user. The more ability one has in organising ones thoughts, and of grasping all the inter-relationships between the ideas in the hierarchical structure of one’s knowledge, the less of an impediment language becomes.
Definitions
It must also be appreciated that the precision of one’s language depends entirely on the precision of one’s definitions. Both clear thinking and clear communicating depend on the precise definitions of concepts. But the fact that it is always a challenge to clearly express complex ideas in language doesn’t undermine the concept of truth, or its knowability. Learning to express one’s self clearly is a skill that takes time, and practice, to acquire.
So don’t be persuaded that contradictions do exist just because someone can present you with some nonsense self-contradictory language. Reality is the primary—it comes first. Language is the means to think with, and to communicate conceptual identifications of reality. Language is secondary. Language is ‘in’ reality. Reality is not ‘in’ language.
Another reason to focus on being as clear and precise with our choice of words as possible is because this awareness works the other way round too. Being aware of definitions and variations of meaning in the way we speak helps us see through potential linguistic tricks. Deception is often achieved by distorting the meaning of concepts and even creating new and different meanings. It is precisely because language is primarily the tool of thought and acquiring knowledge, that it is the weapon of deceivers. This is the meaning of the concept of ‘magic spells’. The method of defence is to have accurate definitions of all the concepts you use.
Language is very powerful; it is the means of conveying, or imparting, meaning, and of therefore, communicating ideas. If you want to deceive others, as men have been doing throughout history, language is the method you use. The truth seeker should bear this in mind when considering concepts such as ‘magic’ and ‘spells’. It shouldn’t be surprising that many methods of word play, multiple meanings, and so forth have been evolved by men over the millennia. But this does not mean that magic is real. It means that deception is real. Magic is an illusion. We are inherently fallible in our reasoning process, and this means that unless we are vigilant, we can be tricked. And perhaps even if we are vigilant, its still possible we can be tricked.
But reality is real, A is A. Things are what they are, and contradictions cannot exist. Apparent contradictions should not be taken as ‘proof’ that magic is real. They should be the red flag that calls for investigation. A contradiction should not be accepted, as mystical dogma demands. A contradiction should be investigated, and resolved.
Summary
The only standard of truth that makes sense and gives meaning to the concept, is reality itself. This is the standard held in the correspondence theory of truth.
Care must be taken to clearly distinguish between subjective facts and objective facts, and to know that subjective preferences (once stated) become objective facts. Perspective is a useful metaphor for intellectual considerations, but it must not be forgotten to integrate all perspectives and the facts into a non-contradictory sum.
Many misunderstandings occur due to the inherent limitations of language. But such limitations have no bearing on the concept of truth and its knowability.
The bottom line is that A is A, things are what they are. Reality is real, and is an objective absolute. As such, it is the only meaningful standard of truth, and the reference against which to measure the truth of any proposition. It is only from this rock solid base that we can proceed to investigate anything, including mysterious and unexplained phenomena.
Chapter 6 – coming soon
Leave a Reply