Criteria of Truth: Intellectual vs. Objective Theories
The ultimate criterion of truth is objective evidence, which manifests internally and immediately to the intellect, as proposed by Critical Realism. This standard is necessary because inadequate theories—such as Descartes' clear and distinct ideas, coherence, utility (Pragmatism), and external authority (Fideism)—fail to guarantee correspondence between judgment and external reality, often leading to subjective or circular reasoning.
Key Takeaways
Objective evidence is the ultimate, non-circular criterion for establishing truth.
Intellectual theories like Coherence and Cartesian clarity fail due to inherent subjectivity.
External authority (Fideism) requires prior objective proof to validate its claims.
Pragmatism confuses utility with truth, failing when applied to simple existential facts.
Critical Realism posits the mind and world as distinct realities known through objective essences.
What is the central problem when defining the criteria of truth?
The central problem in establishing the criteria of truth is determining a reliable, non-subjective standard that confirms the correspondence between our intellectual judgments and external reality. The primary goal of this analysis is to confirm objective evidence as the ultimate criterion, moving beyond definitions that are either subjective or circular. This philosophical pursuit contrasts sharply with the context of scientific inquiry, where scientists typically rely on objective experiment and empirical data, while philosophers often use reasoning derived from first principles to establish foundational truths about knowledge itself.
- Goal: Confirm Objective Evidence as the ultimate criterion for validating truth claims.
- Context: Scientists often use objective experiment; Philosophers use reasoning from first principles to establish foundational knowledge.
Why are traditional intellectual criteria considered inadequate theories of truth?
Traditional intellectual criteria, such as those proposed by Descartes and Hegelian Idealism, are deemed inadequate because they fail to guarantee that a judgment corresponds accurately to external reality. Descartes' criterion of a 'clear and distinct idea,' for instance, is often merely a subjective sense that cannot guarantee correspondence, as demonstrated by the idea of a centaur. Similarly, the Theory of Coherence, which defines truth as consistency within a system of recognized judgments, suffers from bad logic; not all coherent systems are necessarily true, and this theory fails entirely when applied to simple, verifiable existential judgments like 'It is snowing today.'
- Descartes: Clear & Distinct Idea (Subjective sense fails to guarantee correspondence to reality, such as the idea of a centaur).
- Ontologism (Criterion: Intuition of reality in the Mind of God or Ideal Being; Objection: No consciousness of this intuition, making error unaccountable).
- Theory of Coherence (Truth = Consistency with the whole system of recognized judgments; Inadequacy: Not all coherent judgments are true, and it fails for existential judgments).
- Test of Inconceivability (Truth established because the opposite is evolutionarily inconceivable; Rebuttal: True necessity comes from the Principle of Identity, not comparison to impossibilities).
How do non-intellectual criteria rely on external authority to define truth?
Non-intellectual criteria attempt to define truth by appealing to external authority rather than relying on internal evidence or logical consistency. Fideism and Traditionalism, championed by thinkers like Pascal, assert that truth rests on faith, divine revelation, or universal tradition. However, this approach is fundamentally circular because it requires prior certainty of the authority (God, Revelation, or Tradition), which itself demands objective evidence for validation. Likewise, the Common Sense approach relies on instinctive belief recognized by common sense, but if the belief is purely instinctive, it is blind; if it has known grounds, those grounds—the objective evidence—are the real criterion, not the instinct itself.
- Fideism & Traditionalism (Criterion: Faith, Divine Revelation, or Tradition/Universal Agreement; Objection: Requires prior certainty of the authority, which demands objective evidence).
- Common Sense (Criterion: Instinctive belief recognized by common sense; Objection: If grounds are known, the grounds (evidence) are the real criterion, not the instinct).
What are the consequences of adopting Relativism and Subjectivism regarding truth?
Relativism asserts that knowledge is only true relative to the subject's mental laws or specific point of view, leading to severe philosophical consequences. This perspective ultimately leads to the denial of absolute validity for First Principles, such as Identity and Contradiction, which are necessary for rational discourse. While Objective Relativism suggests qualities are objectively true relative to the point of view (e.g., a penny's appearance changes based on perspective), the ultimate consequence of embracing full subjectivism is the 'suicide of reason,' where the concept of error becomes impossible or meaningless, thereby undermining the entire search for truth.
- Relativism (Knowledge is true only relative to the subject's mental laws).
- Leads to denial of absolute validity for First Principles (Identity, Contradiction).
- Objective Relativism: Qualities are objectively true relative to the point of view (e.g., Penny appearance).
- Consequence: Suicide of reason; error becomes impossible or meaningless within this framework.
Why does Pragmatism fail when it defines truth solely by utility?
Pragmatism, or Humanism, defines truth based on utility, asserting that 'that which works' and satisfies human needs is the criterion for truth. This perspective makes truth dynamic, subjective, and often identifies it with the 'Good' or the Will, rather than correspondence to fact. However, Pragmatism is fundamentally inconsistent because it often proves its own theory using intellectual arguments and objective evidence, implicitly appealing to the very standard it attempts to replace. Crucially, it fails when applied to simple, verifiable existential judgments, such as determining the factual state of an object like 'My watch is slow,' where utility is irrelevant to the fact.
- Criterion: Utility ('That which works') satisfying human needs is considered truth.
- Truth is dynamic, subjective, and identified with the 'Good' (Will) rather than objective reality.
- Inconsistency: Proves its own theory using intellectual arguments, implicitly relying on Objective Evidence.
- Fails for existential judgments, such as verifying the factual statement 'My watch is slow'.
What is the ultimate criterion of truth according to Critical Realism?
The ultimate criterion of truth is objective evidence, championed by the philosophical stance known as Critical Realism, which offers a solution to the inadequacies of other theories. Critical Realism maintains that the mind and the world are distinct realities, rejecting pure idealism or subjectivism. It posits that the world is known through 'characters' or 'essences' that are instinctively referred to an extra-experiential reality. The ultimate criterion is therefore the internal, immediate objective evidence of reality manifesting itself directly to the intellect, providing a non-subjective and non-circular foundation for all knowledge and certainty.
- Critical Realism Stance: Mind and World are distinct realities that interact.
- World known via 'characters' or 'essences' instinctively referred to extra-experiential reality.
- Ultimate Criterion: Internal, immediate objective evidence of reality manifesting itself to the intellect.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the main flaw of the Theory of Coherence?
The main flaw is logical: while all true judgments are coherent, not all coherent judgments are true (e.g., the Ptolemaic system). It also fails to validate simple, verifiable existential statements about reality.
Why are Fideism and Traditionalism inadequate criteria for truth?
They are inadequate because they require prior certainty regarding the authority (Faith, God, or Tradition). Establishing the validity of that authority necessitates relying on the objective evidence they seek to bypass.
How does Critical Realism define the relationship between the mind and the world?
Critical Realism holds that the mind and the world are distinct realities. We perceive the world through essences or characters that are instinctively recognized as referring to an objective, external reality.
Related Mind Maps
View AllNo Related Mind Maps Found
We couldn't find any related mind maps at the moment. Check back later or explore our other content.
Explore Mind Maps
