What Is Truth? Essay Example

The easiest route to solving the problem of defining truth is to start with a more direct question - what is a true statement? It is relatively intuitive to assert that a true statement is one that corresponds to a reality independent of interpretation. Prior to further delving into the subject, it is important to note that the notion of truth manifests in both an actual non-contextual sense (which will be the main focus here) as well as a more colloquial sense. The complexity of the prompt arises from the specificities of the abstraction of statements and how they relate to some notion of an independent reality. The concept of interpretation can itself be broken down into a connotative interpretation or perception, which incorporates a sense or feeling of reality (something similar to the Humean notion of impressions), and denotative perception, which relies purely on a rational understanding of a connotative interpretation. This is pertinent as when creating the notion of a hypothetical “translator” of mediums between unperceived reality and interpretive reality (which is effectively the only way to actually determine if there is an alignment between human interpretation and objective reality), connotative perception cannot be translated (as there is no unperceived “equivalent”, in a pure sense the connotation which is generally concomitant to the human experience in interpretive reality is inherently “false”). Hence, non-contextual truth only relates to a rationalized understanding of human perception, and not actual human perception itself. Human perception generally breaks down into two distinct categories -- associational abstractions, wherein the cognition attributes some form of association between perceived objects (this is every notion involving any form of correlation or causation), and material abstractions, wherein a material quality of an object is perceived and connotatively abstracted, by virtue of being interpreted (for example the statement of a ramp being 3 meters; whereas associational abstractions actually add a form of conceptual meaning, material abstractions do not, their sole addition is in their perceptive vivacity, which is not denotative). The two main forms of associational abstraction (the perception of correlation and causation) are interesting in terms of how they relate to truth. Whereas causation actually exists in an independent sense and thus a successful translation is logically feasible (a specific perception of causality in effect being “true”), correlation does not, correlation is purely interpretive and is effectively a “falsehood”, as, unlike in causation, there is no material link in the independent reality. Therefore, correlative associational abstractions will be false a priori, as opposed to false because of material reasons. Material abstractions (when re-translated into their denotative form in the understanding) are not false a priori (not considering their actual content, of course, a material statement such as “the island is not surrounded by water”, will be false a priori, but because of its content and not the nature of material abstractions in and of themselves), however they hypothetically may be conceptualized and contrasted with actual reality, by an entity with a complete comprehension of the relevant section of both mediums. It should be fairly obvious by this point that non-contextual truth is not humanly interpretable, however it is existent and not inherently fallacious. This can be proven by positing the existence of a hypothetical god-being that has a complete understanding of both the actual independent reality (without interpreting it), as well as a certain interpretation of reality. Said being’s capacity to rationalize the interpretation into a denotative understanding, coupled with its non-interpretative understanding of the material universe, would grant it a two-sided contradistinctive fluidity through the liminal stage of non-interpretive perception (the understanding) and a consequent capacity to assess “truth” in a non-contextual, purely denotative sense. Truth in its pragmatic contextual meaning is something closer to an interpretation of other interpretations, and the formation of some sort of perception-average. This is contrasted with the self’s interpretation of a specific notion, with the degree of “falsehood” corresponding to the degree of variance between the interpretation of the average and the individually held perception. Of course all of the aforementioned material solely refers to “knowledge” based “truth”, and I would be remiss to not give at least a brief mention of truth in logic and mathematics, which is actually entirely distinct from truth in a “real” sense. Mathematic and logic-based problems are miniaturized non-interpretive universes, which rely solely on the rational understanding for their formation and an a priori solution. Hence, the state of truth in the context of logic, is drawn from the contrast between an understanding-derived series of denotative premises and postulated conclusions, and the conclusion’s alignment with an answer that is correct a priori.