Truth

Definition of Truth

The ancient, and valuable, definition of truth is this: Truth is the conformity of thought and thing.

The terms of this definition call for a brief explanation.

Thought in our definition means judgment. We have seen (Book I, Chap. III, Art. 2) that ideas are the fundamental elements of thought, but judgment is the basic thought-process. Judgment is the pronouncement of the mind upon the agreement or disagreement of two ideas. Judgment is also the pro93 nouncement upon the agreement of an idea with its object. In all cases judgment is a pronouncement or an enunciation. And the pronouncement concerns the relation of two things, viz,, idea and idea, or idea and object. Hence, every judgment presupposes comparison of two things. Now, an idea in itself is the representation in the intellect of the essence of a thing. In itself it is a mental re-presence. An idea is what it is; it is an idea, and an idea of a certain thing, whether it be dbscure or distinct. Similarly a snapshot is a snapshot, and a snapshot of a certain person or thing, whether it represents that person or thing clearly or dimly. Of the snapshot we may say, “This is a true picture of you,” but to do so we must compare the snapshot with the person it represents. We cannot say the snapshot is true in itself, without any comparison; it is what it is. In the case of ideas we have the same situation. An idea is what it is. It cannot be called true, unless it is brought into comparison with its object and considered with reference to the fidelity, or lack of fidelity, with which it represents that object. Inasmuch, however, as a picture necessarily presupposes the person photographed, and therefore bears in itself a reference to that person, there is a sort of truth predicable of the picture itself.

So, too, with the idea. Inasmuch as the idea has an object, it bears a natural relationship of conformity (more or less perfect) with that object, and hence there is a sort of truth predicable of the idea itself.

But for the proper recognition of conformity or difformity, comparison is manifestly necessary, and the knowledge-act that follows comparison is judgment.

Thus, truth is in the judgment. In ideas, truth is found imperfectly, and in a sort of inchoate manner, inasmuch as the idea itself invites, so to speak, the knowing-subject to notice it in relation with its object. Therefore, the term thought, in our definition of truth, means judgment.

Before explaining the next term, let us warn the student that the illustration borrowed from photography is not meant to explain the nature of the idea itself. Recall the detailed account of knowledge and the knowing-process presented in the very first chapter of this manual.

In the expression “thought and thing,” the term thing means the object of knowledge. Truth is the conformity of knowledge and its object. It is the agreement between the judgment of the mind and the objective thing judged. Truth involves three things, viz., the judging mind, the judgment of the mind, and the objective thing judged. The relation of conformity between the judgment of the mind and the thing judged is truth.

The relation between the judging mind and the objective thing judged may be variously considered.

The objective thing thought about or judged may depend for its existence upon the thinking mind.

Thus creatures depend for their existence upon the Creator. The Creator does not learn what things are from the things themselves; the things are what they are because the Creator knows them and brings them into existence according to His knowledge. On the other hand, the thing thought about may not depend upon the thinking mind for its existence, but only for its being known by that mind. In this manner things “depend” upon created minds. To be known by created minds, the object of knowledge requires that the mind advert to it.

Between the Divine Mind and things there must be conformity. For the Divine Mind is creative.

Things are what they are by reason of the knowledge of the Divine Mind. Things depend on the Divine Mind for existence.

Between the created mind and things there is possibility of difformity. The created mind does not produce its object, but recognizes it more or less perfectly. Inasmuch as there is imperfection in the act of the created mind, there is faulty and even false judgment.

Classification of Truth

We distinguish ontological truth, logical truth, and moral truth. Ontological truth is the truth of things.

Logical truth is the truth of thought or knowledge.

Moral truth is the truth of speech, or truth of the expression of knowledge. Our interest in Criteriology centres upon logical truth. Yet we must study logicatruth as contrasted with the other classifications, especially ontological truth.

1. Ontological truth (also called metaphysical truth, and essential truth) may be stated simply as the necessary conformity of things with the Divine Mind. Things depend for existence upon the Divine Mind, and hence must be as the Divine Mind knows them. Therefore, ontological truth is necessary truth; there can be no ontological falsity.—We may approach this matter in another way. Truth is conformity of thought and thing, and we may look at it from the standpoint of “thought” or the standpoint of “thing.” For an understanding of what ontological truth is, we must look at truth from the standpoint of “thing,” that is, from the standpoint of the object judged. We look from the object toward the mind; we regard the object with reference to the judgment of the mind; we see whether the object squares with the judgment. The judgment is the standard; the object is tested by the standard. Obviously, the object must square with the Mind from which it takes its being. And it must also square with the created mind which accurately knows it. And if the created mind does not know the object accurately, it is the mind that lacks logical truth, not the thing which lacks ontological truth. The thing is what it is; it necessarily squares with accurate knowledge of what it is; there is always ontological truth; there is no ontological falsity. When I say, “This is true gold,” I mean that this object is tested by the standard of accurate knowledge of what gold is, and is found in conformity with that knowledge; I mean that this object squares with what is known> with the accurate knowledge of what gold is; I indicate conformity of this object to accurate judgment ; I indicate conformity of thing to thought; I indicate ontological truth. Primarily, ontological truth is the conformity of the object of knowledge to the perfect knowledge of God. Secondarily, ontological truth is the conformity of the object to created (human) knowledge. Other examples of ontological truth: “He is a true friend”; “This is a triangle”; “That is not wine, but vinegar”; “He is sincere.” Ontological truth is conformity of thing to thought, of object to judgment.
2. Logical truth (called also truth of thought and conceptual truth) is the conformity of thought to thinK, of judgment to object. In describing ontological truth, we took our stand at the object and looked toward the mind; we measured the object by the standard of the accurate judgment. Now, in discussing logical truth, we take our stand at “thought” and look toward “thing”; we measure our knowledge by the standard of the thing judged. When a human mind learns what a thing is, it must conform to that thing. The thing, the object, is the standard to which the mind must conform if the mind is to know the object. When the mind actually conforms to the object, then the mind possesses logical truth. Logical truth is truth of judgment, truth of thought. The judgment, “This is gold,” expresses ontological truth when we regard the object as squaring with accurate knowledge; the same judgment expresses logical truth when we regard it as the judgment of the learning mind which acquires from this object the knowledge of what gold is, and makes its thought meet the requirements of this object. In the latter case, the judgment is equivalent to, “I know now what gold is,” or “I now possess true knowledge of what gold is.” From this we learn that the basic question of Criteriology, viz., “Can we know truth; can we know things rightly; can we have true and certain knowledge?” is the same as the question, “Can we have logical truth?” Logical truth is the conformity of thought to thing, of judgment to object.
3. Moral truth (called also truthfulness, veracity, truth of speech) is the conformity of thought with its objective expression. It is the agreement of thought and speech. The words of man have moral truth when they express his mind. The man may be mistaken, he may lack logical truth, but if he expresses a thing as he knows it, his words have moral truth. Moral truth is discussed in Ethics; it is not the concern of Criteriology.

C) DEGREES OF TRUTH It may be asked whether there are degrees of truth, whether the term true admits of comparison, so that it is logical to say truer and truest. This question is strictly a question of degrees or grades in truth. It is not to be confused with an utterly different question about the relativity of truth. The question of relativity of truth asks whether truth changes, whether truth is in a process of development or evolution, so that what is true to-day may not have been true yesterday or may not be true tomorrow. For the proper distinction of these questions, it seems well to discuss both briefly in the present section. i. Are there degrees of truth? Truth is, properly and formally, the conformity of thought and thing, of mind and object, of judgment and the relation judged. Such conformity either exists or it does not exist; there is nothing further to be said of it; it cannot be somewhat existent or a little absent. Truth, formally considered, is an absolute thing. It admits of no degrees or comparisons. It is as absolute as life or death. And we do not speak of a man as “more or less living” or as “somewhat dead.” Truth either is there or it is not there, and that is all about it.

But we may turn our mind from the consideration of truth taken formally; we may view it subjectively and materially. Viewed subjectively, as it exists in the thinking-subject, truth may be said to NATURE OF TRUTH ioi admit of degrees, inasmuch as the mind may have clearer and fuller knowledge or knowledge less clear and less full. If I know that a triangle is a plane figure, my knowledge is true. But when I learn that it is a plane figure consisting of three straight lines and three angles, I have added a “degree” to the knowledge I first possessed. In a word, I have learned more about the object of knowledge. Notice carefully that this is rather a metaphorical use of the word degree. It is not truth that has developed when I know more of the triangle; it is my knowledge that has become clearer and fuller. What I knew at first is true; it did not become truer by my added knowledge, nor did it become less true in view of my wider information; nor is my fuller knowledge truer than my earlier and less complete knowledge. There are no degrees in truth itself; but there are degrees in my knowledge of things, in my possession of truth.— Materially truth may be said to have degrees, inasmuch as the object of knowledge presents, so to speak, a wider and wider field for the mind of the investigator. Not only can knowledge grow greater, but the field of knowledge may stretch in further and further reaches as the mind advances. Similarly, new scenes and vistas are continually opening to the traveller. Of course, these are there from the first, but they do not come under the traveller’s eye all at once; they are made visible to him by degrees.

To illustrate all this: the student of rational psychology, who is studying the proofs of the immortality of the soul, has a clearer and clearer knowledge of that doctrine as he masters the arguments set forth in his text-book. His true knowledge advances by degrees, and thus, subjectively, there are degrees of truth. Again, the matter studied presents a field for wider and clearer knowledge. New arguments, new lines of thought, are indicated by the matter itself, as more and more is learned about it, and so it manifests itself by degrees. Thus, materially, there are degrees of truth. 2. Is truth relativef The question means: does truth change for times, places, or persons? Is what is true always true, or is truth in a process of random change or continuous development?

Truth is absolute, not relative. “Once true, always true.” It is no argument against this fact to say that what was once believed is now recognized as untrue.

It was once almost universally believed that the earth is flat; nevertheless, the earth is not flat. Nor was it flat when it was believed to be so. What was true when such belief prevailed, is still true, and will be true. A mistaken judgment has been corrected; logical falsity has been dismissed; but truth has not changed.

Nor is it an argument to say, “Ten years ago I said, ‘I am twelve years old,’ and the statement was true. If I make the same statement to-day, it is not true.” What was said ten years ago was true; it was true then; it will forever be true that it was true then. The statement fixes a point of time, and it must always be understood with reference to that fixed point. It means, “I am twelve years old now ” and if that now be used with reference to any other point of time than the one originally indicated, it is not the same now, and the statement is not the same statement. To say, “I am twelve years old now ,” and ten years later to say, “The statement that I am ten years old now is no longer true,” is to bring in an entirely new statement, for the now is not the same.

The statement, “I am twelve years old at &ne certain fixed point of time” is forever true and unchanging.

Again: it is no argument against the absolute and unchanging character of truth to say that the influence of truth varies for times and persons. Christianity did not become true when it converted millions. Old beliefs about this bodily universe do not become false when more accurate means of judging and more careful investigation bring us knowledge to supplant them. Christianity is eternally true, unchangingly true. Old beliefs that have been scientifically discredited were never true, but were mistakenly believed to be true. Let the student grasp this fact firmly: “Once true, always true.” He will then be able to penetrate the fallacy of much modern talk and opinion about “changing morality” (as though such an absurdity were possible), and “religion adapted to the needs of the hour,” and “a philosophy of life that offers values in terms of this earthly existence.” Thousands, nay, millions of minds, are deceived, and countless souls are hurt, by the false theories indicated in those expressions.

Those who assert the relativity of truth destroy their own doctrine even in stating it. For consider: the doctrine is adequately summed up in two words, “truth changes.” This is proposed as a true doctrine, as truth. Therefore, by force of the very doctrine, this truth changes. There is or will be a time when relativity itself must change and be untrue. And what then? Why, then truth will be unchanging, and we are back at our present position. The sane mind cannot escape the conclusion that truth is unchanging and absolute. We shall have occasion to review this matter again later.

Summary Of The Article

In this article we have defined truth as the conformity of thought and thing. We have classified truth, and have found that ontological truth is conformity of thing to thought, while logical truth is conformity of thought to thing. We have mentioned moral truth as truthfulness or truth of speech. We have discussed the question of degrees of truth. We have investigated the mistaken doctrine of the relativity of truth.