In class today(4/26) we discussed the equations to find truth for the view of realism and constructivism. The realists truth was based on how claims corresponded with how the world actually is. While the constructivists truth was based on how claims fit with their own personal experience. I am definitely and admittedly more inclined to subscribe to the realists point of view, but not yet ready to completely disregard the constructivists truth equation. While I believe a balance between the two would be the optimal solution, along with a few other characteristics, I have developed a, perhaps rough, truth equation of my own.
T= C -->Q --> R --> C --> Correspondence --> World
The T represents the truth or supposed truth (i.e. the world is round) The first C represents a claim about this truth. Then my though process is to question this claim hence the next arrow is represented with a Q. After questioning the previous claim and perhaps discovering something new or different or false about it the claim is reformed into a more accurate legitimate claim, thus the stages R (reformation) and the second C (claim). After this slightly different process I would then assess how the claim corresponds to how the world is in order to justify its truth value.
After pondering for a while about how I think, I asked myself if there is anything this cannot be applied to, in other words is there anything I don't think about, or is there any point that one does not think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I like it. The reformulated truth claim reminds me of the (necessary, in empirical matters) introduction of fallibility.
ReplyDeleteI feel that it is important to question your own claims just as quickly as you make them. Unfortunately, the formula for developing absolute truth is still a mystery to me. I think I will blog about absolute truths. Perhaps absolutes are your specialty?
ReplyDelete