Truth isn't correspondence with the facts

Habermas and the social nature of truth

Truth is what corresponds with the facts, right? That might seem like a simple and common-sense view, but as it turns out it is far from either of those things. Despite its many complications, the correspondence theory of truth is the default that contemporary analytic philosophers espouse. Perhaps surprisingly, critical theorist Jürgen Habermas can help us formulate a more plausible account of truth. Habermas reminds us of the social processes involved in our inquiry into the truth: it’s a never-ending attempt to generate social agreement through open, non-coercive and honest communication with others, writes Paul Giladi.

 

The correspondence theory of truth enjoyed, and still does to an extent, a rather privileged status in the Anglo-American philosophical world: it was (and in some circles remains) the default way Anglo-American philosophers answered one of the Big Questions of philosophy. Truth, according to this theory, amounts to correspondence with reality. In other words, a sentence is true when it corresponds to the way things are in the world, the facts, if you like.

But despite the mass-appeal and apparent simplicity of the correspondence theory of truth, it’s not at all obvious what its main claim is supposed to be. In trying to overcome the metaphysical complexities of the correspondence theory, Jürgen Habermas offers an alternative way of understanding truth, not as a direct relationship between language and the world, but as a special kind of social agreement.

The appeal of correspondence

Continue reading

Enjoy unlimited access to the world's leading thinkers.

Start by exploring our subscription options or joining our mailing list today.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Log in

Latest Releases
Join the conversation