Strengths And Weaknesses Of Comrrespondence Theory

814 Words 4 Pages
Let's begin by asking ourselves what is the definition of "Truth" in Philosophy and then let's establish that the one of the common methods for describing what "Truth" means is the Correspondence Theory. This is a theory that is concerned about to compare in a logical sense the reality with the ideas and concepts that explain that reality. This, in turn, is a set of facts or at least is the basis of any given theory that explain it.

We have learned that the questions of objectivity and truth are closely related to questions about a fact. A "fact" can be defined as something that is the case—that is, a state of affairs. Facts may be understood as information that makes a true sentence true and this is a substantial idea in understanding
…show more content…

We define the Correspondence Theory as based upon the principle that what makes a sentence true is that it corresponds to a reality. Reality is a fact or a set of facts. This is a Theory that presupposes the existence of an objective world.

The concept of reality is considered one of the most important questions in Epistemology. Reality is expressed as a set of facts and questions about objectivity and truth of those facts are the main purpose of a Correspondence Test. A "fact", therefore, can be defined as something that is a state of affairs and they may be understood as information that makes "a true sentence true" (2./) Reality may be understood as information about those things to which a true sentence refers.

I think that the basic components of a Correspondence Theory are the following:

This a theory that is the best known and is the most widely used as a conception of "Truth".
The Theory is based on the relationship (correspondence) between the internal beliefs of the people and the realities around them in the external
…show more content…
I have encounter two main criticisms to this theory: the first one is that the theory cannot help us in determining the truth of claims that human beings cannot measure or do not have direct experience. How can handle the existence of God within the framework of this theory? How can we establish that something is true (or not) if we can not have a tangible experience such as some intellectual activities?

Secondly, the Correspondence Theory can be transformed in an oversimplification of truth. Everything is true or everything is false. This is, to me a difficult and complicated scenario that is not able to provide nothing in between. The theory's answer to the question, "What is truth?" is that truth is a certain relationship—the relationship that holds between a proposition and its corresponding fact. Perhaps an analysis of the relationship will reveal what all the truths have in common.


Related Documents