{"id":10311,"date":"2011-10-01T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-10-01T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/10\/01\/an-ontological-argument-for-truth-and-the-correspondence-theory\/"},"modified":"2011-10-01T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-10-01T12:00:00","slug":"an-ontological-argument-for-truth-and-the-correspondence-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2011\/10\/01\/an-ontological-argument-for-truth-and-the-correspondence-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"An Ontological Argument for Truth and the Correspondence Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"

A Pakistani correspondent e-mails:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Regarding your recent post An Ontological Argument for Objective Reality<\/a><\/em>, do you think your argument demonstrates that the correspondence theory of truth is inherent to our notion of objective reality, because we cannot meaningfully, without contradiction, even talk about truth in the absence of objective reality? If so, your argument also settles the case in favor of correspondence theory of truth.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Excellent question.  I define 'ontological argument' in the earlier post<\/a>, and note that 'ontological argument' and 'ontological argument for the existence of God' are not to be confused.  Here is an ontological argument for the existence of at least one truth:<\/span><\/p>\n

We have  the concept true proposition<\/em>. This concept is either instantiated, or it is not. If it is not instantiated, then it is true that it is not instantiated, which implies that the concept true proposition<\/em> is<\/strong>  instantiated. If, on the other hand, the concept in question is instantiated, then of course it is instantiated. Therefore, necessarily, the concept true proposition<\/em> is instantiated, and there necessarily exists at least one truth, namely, the truth that the concept true proposition<\/em> is instantiated.<\/span><\/p>\n

This is a sound ontological argument for the existence of at least one truth using only the concept true proposition<\/em>, the law of excluded middle, and the unproblematic principle that, for any proposition p<\/em>, p<\/em> entails that p<\/em> is true. By 'proposition' here I simply mean whatever can be appropriately characterized as either true or false. That there are propositions in this innocuous sense cannot be reasonably denied. <\/span><\/p>\n

Does it follow that the correspondence theory of truth is true?  I don't think so.  What the above argument shows is that there are truths.  A truth is a true proposition, or, more generally, a true truth-bearer.  But a truth-bearer<\/em> is not the same as a truth-maker<\/em>.  A correspondence theory of truth, however, requires truth-makers.  And so there is a logical gap between<\/span><\/p>\n

1. There are truths<\/span><\/p>\n

and<\/span><\/p>\n

2. There are truth-makers of these truths.<\/span><\/p>\n

My ontological argument establishes (1).  It establishes the existence, indeed the necessity, of at least one truth 'outside the mind.'  But truths outside the mind might just be true Fregean propositions.  Such items are truth-bearers but not truth-makers.  So (2) does not straightaway follow from (1).<\/span><\/p>\n

To get to (2), we need to introduce a truth-maker principle as supplementary premise. Discussions of truth-maker principles can be found in the Truth category<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Pakistani correspondent e-mails: Regarding your recent post An Ontological Argument for Objective Reality, do you think your argument demonstrates that the correspondence theory of truth is inherent to our notion of objective reality, because we cannot meaningfully, without contradiction, even talk about truth in the absence of objective reality? If so, your argument also … Continue reading “An Ontological Argument for Truth and the Correspondence Theory”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[271,228],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ontological-arguments","category-truth"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}