What an exciting class we had today! As we talked about "justified true belief," a long-standing definition of knowledge, someone used the phrase "accepted truth." This led to a fascinating discussion. Consider two sets of phrases, each phrase being composed of a noun and an adjective.
Set A
blue circle, graphite circle, thick-lined circle, square circle, triangular circle
Set B
blue truth, pencil truth, thick-lined truth, my truth, half truth
In set A, the first three items made sense, but in set B, the first three items were non-sensical. A circle is completely capable of being described by the adjectives "blue," "graphite," and "thick-liend," but clearly those adjectives make no sense when applied to the abstract noun, "truth."
In set A, the last two items are non-sensical because, as one student observed, the definition of a circle precluded that word's being modified by either of these adjectives. By definition, one cannot have a triangular circle.
What, then, about the last two items in set B? We hear the phrases "my truth" and "half truth" all the time, but do they make any sense? Can the word "truth" ever be modified by an adjective, or is there something about its definition that precludes such modification?
Interestingly, when pressed to come up with something that was true for person X and not true for person Y, while avoiding mere opinion, the class was hard pressed to find something. An early attempt by one girl was the sentence, "I am a girl," which she said would be untrue if I, her male teacher, spoke it. I suggested that self-reflexive sentences were a category unto themselves (pun intended?) and that we would set them aside for the time being. I would encourage anyone interested in these linguistico-philosophical puzzles to check out Douglas Hofstadter's Metamagical Themas.
Another student suggested that the word "truth" in a particular area, such as truth in mathematics, truth in religion, truth in history, might or might not be capable of accepting an adjective.
So where do you come down on this? Can the word "truth" take an adjective?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
For the whole student X truth vs student Y truth I suggest student X is not colorblind and student Y is. Student X says his SAT book is red. Student Y looks at the exact same SAT book and says the book is grey not red. Obviously Student X's statement is true for him, and not for Y.
As for the whole truth adjective issue. Truth is a very vague word. When someone says truth they could be referring to the truth as they see it, the truth that is written, or (by some divine crazy) they have the infinite wisdom to identify true truth. So, truth requires adjectives so you know what aspect of truth you're talking about (casing point; my use of the adjective true). Written truth: truth that is written, personal truth: your personal truth, etc etc.
Deconstruct at your will
I don't think truth can take an adjective. Since "truth" is an abstract idea one can't describe it. For example "love" no one would ever it as square love, blue love, or thick-lined love. Something is either true or its not. Instead of saying "my truth" it might be more correct to say "what I believe to be true". It seems that there is an absolute truth but it is made subjective when people tell what they beleive to be true. They may twist what really happened or not know the whole story.
An example of the "can truth take on an adjective?" argument is the book "An Inconvenient Truth" by Al Gore. In the title the adjective 'inconvenient' doesn't really modify the noun 'truth', but rather describes or comments on the how the truth in question is interpreted/viewed by others. I think in this sense, an adjective can operate in front of the word 'truth'. Also, we've all heard the sayings "the ugly truth...", "the sad truth...", etc.
Dutchman,
Because Will is in our TOK class, we came to the same point that you have brought up. Because the book can only really be one color (in one place), I don't think that any personal truth can be applied here. The book is red, and the fact that it looks gray to someone who is colorblind is merely a misinterpretation by their eyes (or Will would say the book is actually gray and everyone else sees it wrong). I don't think it can be a personal truth because the gray color is simply a misinterpretation of the actual color of the book.
Also, I would like to point out that it is ironic that stephaniee uses the word love in her example, since "true" another possibly incorrect adjective for "love," which appears in the common phrase "true love"
Ben,
You're mixing interpretation and truth together. So is truth open for interpretation? And if that's not the case, then I'm just gonna need a definition of truth.
Stephanie...I think you have hit the nail on the head. You write, "Something is either true or its not. Instead of saying "my truth" it might be more correct to say "what I believe to be true"."
Sydney...your post supports Stephanie's very well, and I love the reference to a well-known book. As you say, "the adjective 'inconvenient' doesn't really modify the noun 'truth', but rather describes or comments on the how the truth in question is interpreted/viewed by others."
If something is either true or it is not, then can truth not be modified by the adjective "absolute"? Not ALL things believed to be true are absolute, but there certainly are absolute truths, whether they are believed or not. For example, there is either a God or there is not a God. One of those is absolutely true, the other is not.
If there is a God, he does not cease to exist for those who do not believe in him. (And vice versa; if there is not a God, then there cannot be a God, even if everyone believes there is) There is one truth and the converse of that truth cannot be true.
If something is either true or it's not, then the adjective "absolute" modifying "truth" is redundant. "Absolute" implies that a truth is either right or wrong. If we accept that a truth is indeed either right or wrong, then that adjective - "absolute" - is unnecessary. Truth, by our definition, is intrinsically absolute. To me, "absolute" in this circumstance doesn't really modify/describe the noun, in the sense that the adjective "absolute" is essentially just repeating the definition of "truth" in the form of an adjective.
I agree with the statements made by Stephanie and Sydney (and others). I don't believe that "truth" can take an adjective. Sure, our perception(s) of truths shape our interpretations of them, which permits us to juxtapose adjectives (which do not modify "truth") with the word "truth."
But, in the end, a truth is a truth - it's absolute. In the end, an untruth is an untruth - it's absolute. Hence, disregarding redundant adjectives, I don't believe that the word "truth" can take an adjective.
I agree with Matt about the redundancy of the word absolute when applied to truth and see my flaw. Because people often use the word "truth" in a way differing from the definition Matt has given it, "absolute" can be used for emphasis, in which case the adjective does not modify the word truth, it only confirms its real definition.
since we have come to the consensus that there is only one truth, how can it be determined? it can't be by public belief. many people used to believe we lived in a earth centered universe and they were all wrong. so how can one determine among the many views what is true and what is not?
Post a Comment