FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   >>  
which we have a right to be certain that it is invariable. Other judgments of perception are derived from recognition, as when we say "this is a buttercup," or even merely "this is yellow." All such judgments entail some risk of error, though sometimes perhaps a very small one; some flowers that look like buttercups are marigolds, and colours that some would call yellow others might call orange. Our subjective certainty is usually a result of habit, and may lead us astray in circumstances which are unusual in ways of which we are unaware. For such reasons, no form of self-evidence seems to afford an absolute criterion of truth. Nevertheless, it is perhaps true that judgments having a high degree of subjective certainty are more apt to be true than other judgments. But if this be the case, it is a result to be demonstrated, not a premiss from which to start in defining truth and falsehood. As an initial guarantee, therefore, neither self-evidence nor subjective certainty can be accepted as adequate. (2) Coherence.--Coherence as the definition of truth is advocated by idealists, particularly by those who in the main follow Hegel. It is set forth ably in Mr. Joachim's book, "The Nature of Truth" (Oxford, 1906). According to this view, any set of propositions other than the whole of truth can be condemned on purely logical grounds, as internally inconsistent; a single proposition, if it is what we should ordinarily call false, contradicts itself irremediably, while if it is what we should ordinarily call true, it has implications which compel us to admit other propositions, which in turn lead to others, and so on, until we find ourselves committed to the whole of truth. One might illustrate by a very simple example: if I say "so-and-so is a married man," that is not a self-subsistent proposition. We cannot logically conceive of a universe in which this proposition constituted the whole of truth. There must be also someone who is a married woman, and who is married to the particular man in question. The view we are considering regards everything that can be said about any one object as relative in the same sort of way as "so-and-so is a married man." But everything, according to this view, is relative, not to one or two other things, but to all other things, so that from one bit of truth the whole can be inferred. The fundamental objection to this view is logical, and consists in a criticism of its doctrine as to relati
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192   193   194   195   196   197   198   199   200   201   202   203   204   205   206   207   208  
209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   >>  



Top keywords:

judgments

 

married

 

subjective

 

certainty

 

proposition

 

evidence

 

ordinarily

 
result
 

logical

 

things


yellow
 

propositions

 

Coherence

 

relative

 
compel
 
inconsistent
 

condemned

 

purely

 

grounds

 

According


Oxford

 

internally

 

irremediably

 

contradicts

 
single
 

implications

 

logically

 
object
 

consists

 

criticism


relati

 

objection

 

fundamental

 

inferred

 

question

 

subsistent

 

simple

 

illustrate

 
committed
 

doctrine


constituted

 

conceive

 

universe

 

Nature

 

orange

 

colours

 

marigolds

 

buttercups

 
reasons
 

unaware