But, you know, with some contemplation, I think my standpoint shifted a little. It occurred to me that the Coherence Theory of Truth hadn't necessarily come about because the Correspondence Theory was flawed, but rather our inherently limited capacity to observe the world may have been. We are all creatures that strive toward truth--making observations, decisions, and judgments in relation to all of our individual experiences... convinced, perhaps, that the conclusions we discover are without error or fault. (They aren't!) Ultimately, in spite of whatever we know to be objective, we all perceive the world with bias, however slight or negligible we may train it to be.
With the above said, Coherence becomes all the more understandable to me--that if taken as a supplement to Correspondence, and not necessarily a rigid replacement, we may attempt to manipulate systems of logic to enhance and supplement all that we experience... more simply, to make sense of what we see. Although noticeably distinct in their measures, both theories are devices that seek the same end, and from what I understand, I strongly advocate their use in harmony with one-another. If 'ultimate truth' is to genuinely exist--it is likely that we may more effectively try finding it through the interplay of these theories.
"We know the truth, not only by the reason, but also by the heart."
Blaise Pascal
--Aaron

Thoughtful post.
ReplyDeleteI will be responding to your post!
ReplyDelete