Philosophy is an abstract science. As a consequence, it is especially not indifferent to the notion of "truth".
It is easy to determine whether the statement is true thatsugar is over. Here is the sugar bowl, here is the locker, in which sugar is stored. All that is required is just to take and look. No one is wondering what is sugar, and whether it is possible to consider the locker objectively an existing object, if the room is turned off and the furniture is not visible. In philosophy, it is simply necessary to first clarify what is true and what practice includes as a criterion of truth. Because it may well turn out that under these abstract terms everyone understands something of his own.
Truth different philosophers defined differently. This is an objective perception of reality, and an intuitive understanding of the basic axioms, confirmed by logical deductions, and the evidence of the sensations experienced by the subject, verified by practical experience.
But regardless of the philosophical school, nonethe thinker could not offer a way to test the theses, not ultimately going back to sensory experience. Practice as a criterion of truth includes, in the opinion of representatives of different philosophical schools, a variety of, sometimes mutually exclusive methods:
Each of these points offers one way to test the inferences, or simply a way to label them on a "truth / lie" basis in accordance with the specified criteria.
In the opinion of the sensualists (representatives of one of thephilosophical currents), practice as a criterion of truth includes experience based on the sensory perception of the world. Returning to the example with a sugar bowl, we can continue the analogy. If the eyes of the observer do not see anything like the desired object, and the hands feel that the sugar bowl is empty, then sugar really does not exist.
Rationalists believe that practice as a criteriontruth includes everything except sensory perception. They believe, and it is not unreasonable that feelings can be deceived, and they prefer to rely on abstract logic: inferences and mathematical calculations. That is, after discovering that the sugar bowl is empty, it is first of all to doubt. Do not they deceive the senses? What if it's a hallucination? To check the truth of the observation, you need to take a check from the store, see how much sugar was bought and when. Then determine how much the product was consumed, and produce some simple calculations. This is the only way to find out exactly how much sugar is left.
Further development of this concept led tothe emergence of the concept of coherence. In the opinion of the supporters of this theory, practice as a criterion of truth includes not verification calculations, but simply an analysis of the relationship of facts. They must correspond to the general system of knowledge about the world, not to come into conflict with it. You do not need to count the consumption of sugar every time to find out that it is not. It is enough to establish logical patterns. If a kilogram for a standard consumption is enough for a week, and this is already reliably known, then finding an empty sugar bowl on Saturday, you can trust your experience and ideas about the world order.
Pragmatists believe that knowledge must be beforethey are all effective, they must be of use. If knowledge works, then it is true. If it does not work or works incorrectly, providing a substandard result, then it is false. For pragmatists, practice as a criterion of truth includes, rather, an orientation toward a material result. What's the difference, what do calculations show and what do feelings say? Tea should be sweet. The truth will be those conclusions that will provide such an effect. While we do not recognize that we do not have sugar, tea will not become sweet. Well, then it's time to go to the store.
Conventionalists believe that the practice of bothThe criterion of truth includes, first of all, the public recognition of the truth of the statement. If everyone thinks something is right, then so it is. If everyone in the house believes that there is no sugar, you need to go to the store. If you drink tea with salt and claim that it is sweet, then for them salt and sugar are identical. Therefore, they have a full salt cellar of sugar.
A philosopher who declared that practice as a criteriontruth includes a scientific experiment, was Karl Marx. A convinced materialist, he demanded the verification of any assumption by experimental means, and it is desirable repeatedly. If we continue a small example with an empty sugar bowl, then the convinced Marxist must turn over and shake it, then do the same with an empty package. Then try all the substances in the house that resemble sugar. It is advisable to ask to repeat these actions of relatives or neighbors, so that the conclusion is confirmed by several people in order to avoid mistakes. After all, if practice as a criterion of truth includes a scientific experiment, it is necessary to take into account possible errors in its conduct. Only then can we say with certainty that the sugar bowl is empty.
The trouble with all these conclusions is that noneof them does not guarantee that the verified conclusion will be true. Those philosophical systems, which are based primarily on personal experience and observations, can by default give an answer that is objectively not confirmed. Moreover, in their coordinate system objective knowledge is impossible at all. Because any sensory perception can be deceived by these same feelings. A person in a delirious delirium can write a monograph on the features, confirming each of its points with their own observations and sensations. Daltonik, describing a tomato, will not lie. But will the information provided to them be true? For him, yes, but for others? It turns out that if practice as a criterion of truth includes experience based on subjective perception, then truth does not exist at all, it has its own. And no experiments will fix this.
Methods based on the concept of publicagreements, are also very doubtful. If truth is what most people think is true, does this mean that a couple of thousand years ago the Earth was flat and lay on the backs of whales? For the inhabitants of that time, no doubt, so it was, no other knowledge was required. But in this case the Earth was still round! So, there were two truths? Or not one? In bullfight, the moment of truth is called the decisive battle between a bull and a bullfighter. Perhaps this is the only truth that is beyond doubt. In any case for the loser.
Of course, each of these theories in something is right. But none of them is universal. And you need to combine various methods of confirming assumptions, agreeing to compromises. Perhaps the ultimate objective truth is comprehensible. But in practical terms, we can only talk about the degree of proximity to it.