Dear Dr. Adler:

I find it hard to define what truth is. Some of my friends say that truth is what most people think is so. But that does not make sense to me, because sometimes the majority is wrong. Even what everyone thinks is so may not be the truth. There must be some better definition of truth. What is it?

Arthur Naughton

You are quite right to feel dissatisfied. Your friends did not arrive at a definition of truth, but at one of the signs of truth. In certain cases the fact that the majority holds something to be true is an indication that it is probably true. But this is only one of the signs of truth, and by no means the best one. And it does not answer your question or Pilate's -- "What is truth?"

It may help you to understand the nature of truth to consider what is involved in telling a lie. If a man tells a woman "I love you" when he does not, he is telling a lie. When a child who has raided the cookie jar tells his mother "I didn't," he is lying. Lying consists in saying the opposite of what you know, think, or feel. It is distinct from honest error, such as that of the umpire who calls a man *out* when he is *safe*, or vice versa.

Josiah Royce, an American philosopher at the beginning of this century, defined a liar as a man who willfully misplaces his ontological predicates; that is, a man who says *is* when he means *is not*, or *is not* when he means *is*. Royce's definition of a liar leads us quickly to the most famous of all philosophical definitions of truth. It was given by Plato and Aristotle almost twenty-five centuries ago; it has been repeated in various ways ever since, and seldom been improved upon.

Plato and Aristotle say that the opinions we hold are true when they assert that that which is, is, or that that which is not, is not; and that our opinions are false when they assert that that which is, is not, or that that which is not, is.

When the *is* in a statement we make agrees with the way things are, then our statement is true, and its truth consists in its corresponding to the existent facts of nature and reality. When we think that something exists or has happened which does not exist or did not happen, then we are mistaken and what we think is false.

So, as you see, truth is very easy to define, and the definition is not very hard to understand. Perhaps impatient Pilate would have waited for the answer if he had known that it could be given so briefly. But maybe he was thinking of another question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true or false?" This, by the way, is the question you and your friends ended up by answering.

To this question there are three main types of answer. The first insists that some statements are self-evidently true, such as, "The whole is greater than the part." Such statements reveal their truth to us directly by the fact that we find it impossible to think the opposite of them. When we understand what a whole is and what a part is, we cannot think that a part is greater than the whole to which it belongs. That is how we know immediately the truth of the statement that the whole is greater than any of its parts.

Another type of answer says that the truth of statements can be tested by our experience or observations. If a man says that it did not rain in Chicago a single day last month, we can check the truth of his statement by looking up the official weather records. Or we can stick a foot into a swimming pool to see if the water is as warm as a friend says it is. Similarly, a scientific generalization is considered true only as long as no contrary facts are observed.

The third type of answer has to do with statements that are neither self-evidently true nor capable of being checked by direct appeal to observed facts. It may be a question of a person's character, what type of product is most desirable for certain purposes, or whether the favorite will win the next race. Here it is permissible to count noses and to find the consensus of a group of people or of the experts. That an opinion is held by a majority can be taken as a sign that it has some probability of being true.

This third answer was the one your friend arrived at. But the fact that it expressed the consensus of the group does not make it the right answer to the question, "What is truth?" Nor does it give the full answer to the question, "How can we tell whether a statement is true?"

Defining truth is easy; knowing whether a particular statement is true is much harder; and pursuing the truth is most difficult of all.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Dan Krudop to Max Weismann:

D.K.: I have several questions about Dr. Adler's "Six Great Ideas".

At the end of the chapter on The Liar and the Skeptic, he writes, "The person we ask for directions may honestly but erroneously think that a certain road is the shortest route to the destination we wish to reach. When he tells us which road to take, what he says is false, but not a lie. However, if he does in fact know another road to be shorter and withholds that information from us, then his statement is not only false, but also a lie." The premise is that we asked for directions. It is not spelled out that we wanted the shortest route. I might know the shortest route but also know that it is very confusing. I could honestly but erroneously tell an individual a longer route that I thought was less confusing, but would get them to their destination. Although my statement is false and I knew a shorter route that I withheld, I don't think I would be telling a lie.

M.W.: Let me here quote what else he said in that chapter, which I think will shed light:

To lie is to commit a deliberate deception for the sake of gaining some advantage, regardless of the injury that may befall the deceived -- injury equals injustice.

When we characterize a person as a liar, implying thereby a condemnation of his or her moral character, we usually impute to that person a habitual disposition or inclination to speak falsely whenever some profit can be gained from the deception. We are put on guard to beware of what that person says. Habitual or chronic lying is vicious behavior denotative of bad moral character.

The condemnation of lying as morally wrong or unjust presupposes that *injury* results from the deception. What we call a *white lie* and usually condone rather than condemn consists in a harmless deception or one that even may work to the benefit of the person deceived. But whether the false statement turns out to be injurious or beneficial, it remains a false statement because what its words say do not correspond to what the person who has made the statement actually thinks."

D.K.: In the chapter on The Pursuit of Truth, he writes, "At the opposite extreme, clearly belonging to the sphere of taste, are matters as cuisine, social manners, styles in dress or dance, patterns of family life, and so on. Here we do not expect human beings to overcome their conflicting predilections or preferences, nor do we think they should try to do so." Are there not cuisines that are healthy for the body and others that are detrimental to health?

M.W.: Could you name an unhealthy cuisine?

D.K.: Maybe I'm mixing cuisine with diet. I'm mostly thinking of *American Cuisine/Diet*. Such as, boil vegetables and pour the nutrient laden water down the drain. Since all the potassium and other essential vitamins and minerals were boiled away, we add salt for seasoning or taste. We end up with too much salt in our system because of the way foods are prepared. Our cuisine has historically been high in fat and cholesterol content. Most Americans are overweight although not solely from diet. Other life style choices contribute.

M.W.: That people differ in their tastes is itself an indisputable fact. It is also true that there is no point in arguing with a man about what he likes or dislikes. But it is still quite possible to tell a man that he has poor taste and that what he likes is in itself not excellent or beautiful. Here there is plenty of room for argument.

D.K.: Are there not patterns of family life that benefit society and patterns that are detrimental to society? Even in matters of social manners and styles in dress or dance, some, I believe can be categorized as improper though maybe the rest would not necessarily be more proper than others.

M.W.: Are you here speaking about improper cultural *patterns of family life* or perhaps your next door neighbor?

D.K.: I wasn't thinking of neighbors, but since you mentioned that I do have neighbors who . . .

I really like your Great Ideas Online weekly. It encourages me to keep up my studies of the Great Books and Great Ideas. The essay and letters are in just the right balance, while the length is perfect to digest at one sitting.

I eagerly look forward to my next issue as a refreshing and uplifting change from my normal everyday e-mails.

Sincerely,

Russ Emerson

WHO SAID THIS? (asked in our previous issue)

"When I am alone with myself, I have not the courage to think of myself as an artist in the great and ancient sense of the term. Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya were great painters; I am only a public entertainer who has understood his times and has exhausted as best he could the imbecility, the vanity, the cupidity of his contemporaries. Mine is a bitter confession, more painful than it may appear, but it has the merit of being sincere."

Pablo Picasso, correctly answered by David Quezada.

We reserve the right to edit all submissions for relevancy and concision and to publish them at our discretion.

The Great Ideas Online is published free of charge to its members by the Center.

Top

Index to The Great Ideas Online

Home page Center for the Study of The Great Ideas