Truth Essay

What is Truth?

There are four different ways of knowing which are essential in helping us as knowers distinguish the difference between something that is true and something that is believed to be true. Almost daily, I encounter personal experiences where I must use perception, language, reason, or emotion to figure out whether or not something is true. The implications of my claim may result in people constantly thinking about what they believe to be true, while using knowledge to decide if it actually is a justified truth. The counterclaims of this argument would arise if a person doesn’t follow Plato’s theory on the ways of knowing. In order to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true, a person must know how the ways of knowing are using in creating a justified true belief.

There are four different ways in which we as human beings can gain knowledge- through perception, language, reason, and emotion. However, in order to claim that we know something, we must be able to justify it. This can be done through authority, empiricism, memory, or reason. For example a person can claim that all teenagers are bad drivers, which would be his personal belief. He could even justify this by using empiricism or reason. If he were to use empiricism he might say that, “yesterday when I was driving, a teenager cut me off.” He could also create a syllogism and use reason to say, “People who cut others off while driving are bad drivers. The only people who cut me off while driving are teenagers. Therefore, only teenagers are bad drivers.” Therefore, in his mind he may believe that it is true that all teenagers are bad drivers, which is different than what is actually true. This is because in order for something to be true it must be eternal, public, and independent. This man’s claim that all teenagers are bad drivers isn’t true because although that one specific incident may have been eternal, it doesn’t mean that his claim is eternal. Also, his claim that all bad drivers are teenagers isn’t public, because it is not a claim that is made by an authority figure. For instance, if his claim was public, teenagers probably wouldn’t be allowed to drive because they would be such high risks to the surrounding community. Finally, his claim was not independent, because although the incident did occur regardless of what anyone else may have believed, it cannot stand alone because there is not enough evidence to support that all teenagers are bad drivers. In my personal life I face situations similar to this one, where I have to decide if what I believe to be true is actually true.

In my house as well as at my work, English is the only language that we speak. Because of this, I sometimes believe that English is the dominant language of the world. I might have gained this idea through my perception, because English is always being spoken around me. I could justify my belief to an extent through empiricism, by saying that I constantly hear people speaking the English language. There are even authority figures who are constantly speaking English, and most of the TV shows that are on are broadcasted in English. However, despite my belief, I am unable to claim that it is true that English is the dominant language of the world. This is first of all because it is not publically stated that English is the dominant language of the world. Also, it can’t be eternal because this has never been true before. My belief certainly isn’t independent because it cannot stand on its own due to the fact that it is only my personal opinion. Therefore, despite my ability to justify why I believe something to be true, I cannot justify that it is actually true. ThisHowever, there are some instances where people may create counterclaims against what I think is needed for something to be considered the truth.

There are people who can successfully argue with my viewpoint, by saying that there are some cases where you cannot distinguish between what is believed to be true and what is actually true. An example of this counterclaim is with religions and belief in God. A person can say that they believe there is a God, and they can claim that they know this through their emotions and perception. They can then go on to say that it is justified through authority figures, like the pope, bishops, and priests. This all works, except when they reach the point of distinguishing whether or not God actually exists, and there becomes a problem. The existence of God can be eternal, because when a person goes to church they can say that God will always exist at that one specific time. God’s existence is also public because there are some holidays that only celebrate God’s existence. It is also independent, because knowledge of God’s existence can vary from person to person, but it still remains true to certain people. Although it meets the three key factors from Plato’s definition of what is true, there is still no way of differentiating whether or not what is believed to be true is actually true. The belief that God exists could be true, and according to Plato it is true; however there are people who would say that because there is no way of proving his existence it is not actually true. This is why it is so difficult to distinguish between what is true versus what is believed to be true.

The implication of my argument is that we as human beings have an ability to distinguish between something which is believed to be true and something that is actually true, although it may be difficult at times. However, we are able to use our four ways of knowing to justify what we believe to be true, and we can therefore decipher whether or not it is actually true by testing to see if it is eternal, public, and independent.