Truth In The Truth: The Correspondence Theory Of Truth

The Correspondence Theory of Truth can be traced back to early Greek philosophers. Aristotle defined Truth as: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.” While the theory has undergone countless revisions, it still maintains that the determining factor in Truth is whether or not a premise accurately describes reality. For example, we may say Heliocentrism is true and that we can say so because said model is an accurate depiction of “what is.” This is why there is placed so much confidence in this theory and why it seems the most intuitive to people. It would seem that someone who pursued something that did not seek to align with accurately portraying reality then they would be engaged with something different than truth or -- at least -- a truth of a different kind. …show more content…
When, for instance, astronomers are making claims on what they are observing, they are subject to logical critique as well as one’s concerning the observations themselves. Any presupposition, unforeseen consequence, or logical failure is equally a barrier to truth as failures or limitations of observation. (Markus, 809) Biasing any understanding on a bundle of ideas, which correspond to “what is” would lack nuance in use. To say -- If A then (A or B) is not the same as If (A and B) then A – would be difficult to come by with correspondence theory of truth. In order to justify a proposition within a correspondence theory of truth, there is a simple relationship between a proposition and what it is to correspond with to make it true. Correspondence theories restricted their practitioners to a very limited scope that they must work under. Truth cannot often be found in a universe that only contains a proposition and its corresponding truth marker. (Markus