Two questions
Those are two very different questions. Pilate appears to be asking the first one, particularly since he waited for no answer, giving the impression that there is no answer to give. Let's return to the two questions. Are both questions unanswerable? Both are answerable, but there is a problem with one of them.
What is the definition of the word "truth"?
Some years ago I was talking with a well-educated lawyer (that is, his education exceeded law school), and he remarked, "Philosophers have never agreed on what truth is." I disagreed strongly. Ironically, it is one area of philosophy in which remarkable unity exists.
In a sentence, truth is a statement that conforms or corresponds to reality.
First, truth is a statement. Whenever we use the words truth, true, falsity, false they are in regard to an IS statement. Of course, when I say IS, I include past or present tense and various forms that "to be" will take: is, was, are, were, am.
We do not use true or false with questions. "Where are my keys?" It is neither true nor false.
We do not use true of false with commands. "Find my keys." It is neither true nor false.
Essentially, true and false are used with words, specifically statements with "to be" in them. "My last name is Vawter." "I was married May 2nd, 1971." My words are true in the statement "My last name is Vawter" if Vawter does correspond to my real last name. If the words "I was married May 2nd, 1971" correspond to the day I was actually married, then they are true. In the two example given, my last name is Vawter, but I was married on May 2nd, 1970. Statement one is true, but statement two is false.
The problem with future tense
We do not use true or false with future tense, that is, not about the statement per se. "I will pick you up at 10am." This is a potential true or false which can be determined at 10am at which time the words will or will not correspond to whether I actually show up. Though someone might say, "I know VL spoke the truth when he said he'd be here at 10am," what he really means is, "I believe VL's intent is true that he will be here at 10am." When a comment is made concerning the future, the statement is not true or false. There is nothing to conform to.
Consider another simple example: "Sunrise will be at 7:15am." This is a typical statement on a weather forecast; yet, it is not true or false. It is probable. It may or may not happen, although the calculations may be 99.99999% accurate. The calculations used to determine 7:15am are considered accurate (a synonym for true). But we cannot say the statement itself is true or false until 7:15am.
Objective and subjective
I make the statement "I will be there at 10am" in the public; anyone can hear it or read it and verify what I said. In sharp contrast the intent is private; it is only in my mind. You may hear my words, judge by some means if I'm being truthful, but only I truly know. Something that is public is called objective. It is an "object" that can be verified by others. Something that is private is called subjective. It only exists within the subject. For another example, I might say, "I have a headache." The description of my pain is public and objective. What my pain feels like or whether I have pain is private and is subjective.
Back to the promise (or future tense statement) of being there at 10am. My words are objective, and my intent is subjective. The objective nature of future tense is neither true or false. True or false occurs if the objective can be tested. The subjective nature of future tense is true or false in regard to my intent and cannot be tested. Only I know if it's true or false. You can only believe if my intent is true or false.
The problem with ought and should
These words are frequently used; yet, they do not express what is or was, but potential. "You ought to pick me up at 10am." The reasons that a person may have for saying that may be true or false. But the statement itself is neither true nor false. It has not occurred. There is no way to measure the statement against reality. The main argument against any sort of universal Ethics is that there is no way to objectively prove if ethical statements are true or false. Reasons can be given why "Do not steal" should be obeyed, but a thousand reasons cannot create a true or false. Only a correspondence to reality creates true or false statements. (There are other tests for truth, such as coherence. Yet, coherence is a specialized type of correspondence.) It is impossible to test a potential against reality until it occurs. Certainly probability exists for potential statements and gives a sense of certainty, e.g., "The sun will rise tomorrow"; yet, IS and PROBABLE are not the same, regardless how probable.
If truth can be defined, why did Pilate ask what it was
Pilate was not asking for the definition of truth. He was asking, "How can I know if this particular thing is true or false?" The difficulty that people have with truth is not its definition, but its application.
"Creationism is true ... No, no, no, the theory of evolution is true." It is quite easy to list hundreds of competing positions that people take, each claiming to be true and implying that the competing one is false. Their definition of truth is identical. A creationist will say that his statements about creation correspond to reality. An evolutionist will say that his statements about the varieties of lifeforms conform to reality.
Why do they believe they are true? Each side will give reasons that they offer as evidence that their statements do, indeed, conform to reality. Each side knows what truth is as a definition, but the application of experience, learning, and logic to data to form an argument that such-and-such is true is the issue that is argued over.
So, what is truth? Statements that conform to reality.
Is this or that true? Now we come to the tests of truth. I'll discuss that in an uncoming blog.
No comments:
Post a Comment