# Truth ### Some basics of scientific and philosophical thinking

## How is Kreeft's essay organized? * Objections come first ("it seems") * Then a pivot ("On the other hand") * Then his thesis ("I answer") * Then the proof of his thesis ("I argue that") * Then he refutes to earlier objections ("Reply 1...")

## What is Kreeft's basic thesis? _Truth is real._

## "Objective" An object is not something that depends on my thinking it. So, it is possible to know what's what, and that no skeptical challenge to that possibility can stand up to scrutiny.

## What is truth? Saying of what is, that it is.

### Three senses of "Truth" |Name | Sense | Example | |----------------|----------------|------------------| | Substantive Truth | Reality itself | Mount Everest being a mountain. | | Knowledge | Thinking truly | Mount Everest is a mountain. | | True words | Speaking truly | “Mount Everest is a mountain.” |

>“Truth is saying of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not.” (Aristotle) Reality —> Thought —> Expression in language Truth itself True thought True statement

## Peter Kreeft, Summa Philosophica ### Q. VI, Article 2. Whether truth is objective? **Objection 1:** It seems that it is not, for people differ about what is truth, and that about which people differ is subjective. If truth were, objective, there would be no disagreements and arguments. But ordinary discourse is full of continual disagreements, which have never been resolved. If there were objective truth, they would have been resolved. Therefore there is no objective truth.

***On the contrary,*** if all truth were subjective, then that truth also would be subjective. But what is subjective is changeable and uncertain. Therefore if all truth were subjective, it would be changeable and uncertain, and thus that “truth” also — that all truth is changeable and uncertain — would be changeable and uncertain. But what is uncertain may be false, and what is changeable can be changed. Therefore the “truth” that all truth is subjective, is uncertain, and may be false; and it is changeable, and can be changed — and if changed, then changed to “truth is objective."

If it is only subjectively true that truth is subjective, or “true for you,” then the fact that that any supposed truth is “True for you”, subjectively, does not entail that it is true for all, objectively, or that it is true for me. And therefore it has no rational authority over me and I have no reason to believe it. On the other hand, if it is objectively true that truth is subjective, we have an immediate self-contradiction.

I answer that what everyone means by truth is what Aristotle defined as “thinking and saying what is,” i.e. the conformity of what is believed to what is, or of thinking to being.

For all alternative definitions of truth (e.g., the pragmatic concept of truth that “truth is what works,” or the coherence theory of truth, that “truth is the coherence of ideas with each other,” or the idealist theory of truth, that “truth is the conformity of what-is to thought”) claim that it is really the case that truth is what works, or what coheres, or the conformity of thing to thought rather than thought to thin. In other words, in arguing that their philosophy is the true one, they argue that what they believe corresponds to what is, thus they presuppose the common concept of truth as Aristotle defines it. And this is what people mean by “objective truth.”

What persuades people otherwise is always some confusion between two or more of the following five questions: Is this thing real? (yes or no) If so, do we or can we know that this thing is real? (yes or no) If so, is that knowledge certain rather than merely probably? (yes or no) If so, can I convince others of that certainty by rational argument? (yes or no) If so, does the argument use empirical methods? (yes or no)

- Is this thing real? **If not, then knowledge of it is not possible** - If so, do we or can we know that this thing is real? **If not, a thing can be real without being known.** - If so, is that knowledge certain rather than merely probably? **If not, a thing can be known without being known with certainty.** - If so, can I convince others of that certainty by rational argument? **If not, a certainty can be private rather than demonstrable.** - If so, does the argument use empirical methods? **If not, then a proof or demonstration may use other methods than empirical ones.**

## Objections **Objection 1:** It seems that it is not, for people differ about what is truth, and that about which people differ is subjective. If truth were, objective, there would be no disagreements and arguments. But ordinary discourse is full of continual disagreements, which have never been resolved. If there were objective truth, they would have been resolved. Therefore there is no objective truth.

**Reply to objection 1:** All the premises of this argument are false. 1. People do not differ totally but only partially, about what is truth. For if they differed totally, they could not argue, since all argument depends on agreed premises. 2. That about which peole differ is not necessarily subjective, for two students may get different answers to a math problem, yet one is objectively correct and the other incorrect. 3. It is also not truth that “if truth were objective, then there would be no disagreements about it.” In fact, only if truth is objective can there be disagreements about it. People do not argue about strictly subjective things. We never hear arguments like: “I feel sick!” “No! I feel well.”

* **Objection 2:** Even granted that objective truth exists in science, for scientists do come to universal or nearly universal agreement, this is not the case in philosophy. For there is no philosophical teaching about which all philosophers agree. Therefore there is no objective truth in philosophy. * **Reply to Objection 2:** Universal agreement is neither the cause nor the criterion of truth. For it is possible the fools universally agree on something false. And as Socrates showed, those who do not admit the possibility that they're fools are the greatest of fools. But just as there are things fools agree on that are false, there are things that fools do not agree on that are true.

* **Objection 3:** Even granted that objective truth exists in philosophy, it does not follow that we can know it. For if truth is objective, its existence does not depend on our knowing it, while if it is subjective, it exists only in our knowledge of it. Thus only if truth is subjective is it by definition knowable, while if it is objective it is independent of our knowledge and beyond it rather than in it, and this does us no good.

* **Reply to Objection 3:** 1. The argument confuses two senses of the word “in” When it speaks of truth being “in” our knowledge: (a) as received into the order of our subjective knowing from without, i.e., from the order of objective being, and (b) as generated by, or at least dependent on, and not independent of, our subjective knowing. It is true that if truth is objective it could be unknown, while if it is subjective it is by definition known. But this does not prove that it is unknown. 2. As skepticism denies that anyone can know they are right, subjectivism denies that anyone can be wrong. They are equally self-refuting.

* **Objection 4:** To claim that we can know objective truth is to assume that we want to know it, or ought to know it. But Nietzsche, in an unprecedented flight of boldness, questions even this “will to truth” when he asks: “Why truth? Why not rather untruth?”

## Nihilism * What is the opposite of truth? * The denial of truth — objective truth — is nihilism, the denial of reality itself. * Hence, Gorgias of Athens said: >Nothing exists; > Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and > Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.

## Nihilism Hence, also, Nietszsche: >*“It is true, there could be a metaphysical world; the absolute possibility of it is hardly to be disputed. We behold all things through the human head and cannot cut off this head; while the question nonetheless remains what of the world would still be there if one had cut it off.”* *Human, All Too Human*, s.9, R.J. Hollingdale transl.

## 2 minutes left * Is Kreeft right? * Questions? * Write a short response: is truth objective? * Review "Moral Relativism" handout