Philosophy is an abstract science. As a result of this, the concept of “truth” is especially not indifferent.
The ambiguity of truth
It is easy to determine if the statement that the sugar is over is true. Here is a sugar bowl, here is a cabinet in which sugar is stored. All that is required is just to take and see. No one wonders what sugar is, and whether a cabinet can be considered an objectively existing object if the room is turned off and no furniture is visible. In philosophy, it is simply necessary to clarify initially what truth is and what practice includes as a criterion of truth. Because it may well turn out that under these abstract terms everyone understands something of their own.
Various philosophers defined the truth differently. This is an objective perception of reality, and an intuitive understanding of the main axioms, confirmed by logical conclusions, and the evidence of sensations experienced by the subject, verified by practical experience.
Methods for understanding the truth
But regardless of the philosophical school, not a single thinker was able to offer a way to test the theses, not ultimately going back to sensory experience. Practice as a criterion of truth includes, according to representatives of different philosophical schools, the most diverse, sometimes mutually exclusive methods:
- sensual confirmation;
- organic compatibility with the general system of knowledge about the world;
- experimental confirmation;
- the consent of society, confirming the truth of the assumption.
Each of these points offers one way to verify the conclusions or just a way to mark them on the principle of "true / false" in accordance with the specified criteria.
Sensationalists and rationalists
According to the sensualists (representatives of one of the philosophical movements), practice as a criterion of truth includes experience based on the sensory perception of the world. Returning to the sugar bowl example, we can continue the analogy. If the eyes of the observer do not see anything similar to the desired object, and the hands feel that the sugar bowl is empty, then there really is no sugar.
Rationalists believe that practice as a criterion of truth includes everything except sensory perception. They believe, and not without reason, that feelings can deceive, and prefer to rely on abstract logic: inferences and mathematical calculations. That is, having discovered that the sugar bowl is empty, it is worth doubting first. But do not the senses deceive ? What if it's a hallucination? To check the truth of the observation, you need to take a check from the store, see how much sugar was bought and when. Then determine how much product has been used up and make simple calculations. This is the only way to find out exactly how much sugar is left.
Further development of this concept led to the emergence of the concept of coherence. According to supporters of this theory, practice as a criterion of truth does not include verification calculations, but simply an analysis of the relationship of facts. They should correspond to the general system of knowledge about the world, not come into conflict with it. You do not need to count sugar consumption each time to find out that it is not there. It is enough to establish logical patterns. If a kilogram with standard consumption lasts for a week, and this is already reliably known, then, having discovered an empty sugar bowl on Saturday, you can trust your experience and ideas about the world order.
Pragmatists and conventionalists
Pragmatists believe that knowledge should be effective above all, it should be useful. If knowledge works, then it is true. If it does not work or does not work correctly, providing a poor-quality result, then it is false. For pragmatists, practice as a criterion of truth includes, rather, orientation toward a material result. Who cares what the calculations show and what the feelings say? Tea should be sweet. The conclusions that provide such an effect will be true. Until we recognize that we have no sugar, tea will not become sweet. Well, then it's time to go to the store.
Conventionalists are convinced that practice as a criterion of truth includes, first of all, public recognition of the truth of a statement. If everyone thinks something is right, then so it is. If everyone in the house believes that there is no sugar, you need to go to the store. If they drink tea with salt and claim that it is sweet, then for them salt and sugar are identical. Therefore, they have a full salt shaker.
Marxists
The philosopher who declared that practice as a criterion of truth includes a scientific experiment was Karl Marx. A convinced materialist, he demanded verification of any assumption experimentally, and preferably repeatedly. If we continue a small example with an empty sugar bowl, then a convinced Marxist should turn it over and shake it, then do the same with an empty bag. Then try all the substances in the house that resemble sugar. It is advisable to ask relatives or neighbors to repeat these actions so that several people confirm the conclusion in order to avoid mistakes. After all, if practice as a criterion of truth includes a scientific experiment, one must take into account possible errors during its implementation. Only then can we say with confidence that the sugar bowl is empty.
Is there truth?
The trouble with all these conclusions is that not one of them guarantees that the conclusion verified in a certain way will be true. Those philosophical systems that are based primarily on personal experience and observations, by default, can give an answer that is not objectively confirmed. Moreover, in their coordinate system, objective knowledge is generally impossible. Because any sensory perception can be deceived by these very feelings. A person in feverish delirium can write a monograph about the devil, confirming each of its points with his own observations and feelings. Color blind, describing a tomato, will not lie. But will the information provided to them be true? For him, yes, but for others? It turns out that if practice as a criterion of truth includes experience based on subjective perception, then truth does not exist at all, each has its own. And no experiments will fix it.
Methods based on the concept of a social contract are also very doubtful. If truth is what most people consider truth, does this mean that a couple of thousand years ago the Earth was flat and lay on the backs of whales? For the inhabitants of that time, undoubtedly, it was so, they did not need any other knowledge. But at the same time, the Earth was still round! So, there were two truths? Or not a single one? In bullfight, the moment of truth is the decisive battle between the bull and the bullfighter. Perhaps this is the only truth that is certain. In any case, for the loser.
Of course, each of these theories is somewhat correct. But not one of them is universal. And you need to combine different methods of confirming assumptions, agreeing to compromises. Perhaps the ultimate objective truth and comprehensible. But in practical terms, we can only talk about the degree of proximity to it.