Измайлова А. - The Theory of Truth in the Writings of William James

Измайлова Аленка

The Theory of Truth in the Writings of William James.
There are five main `theories of truth`: the correspondence theory, the
coherence theory, and the pragmatic, redundancy and semantic theories. They
are all concerned with truth and falsity as properties of what people say or
think, but at the same time they do not address the same question. How should
the content of what we say or think be specified? What are the bearers of
truth? Pragmatic theory, one of main representatives of which are James,
Peirce, Dewey, Misak, holds that the truth of a belief is a matter of whether
it "works", that is, whether acting upon it pays off (just in case the
experiences we have are matter of coherence with future experiences). Ralph
Walker argues that pragmatists "adopt their position not because it seems to be
what we normally think, or part of the ordinary meaning of `true`, but because
they feel there are strong pressures requiring us to accept what they hold
about the nature of truth" (Hale, Wright, ed., p.314). Pressures, he
continues, are from considerations about knowledge and from considerations
about meaning. Pragmatism teaches that when absolute truth is elusive, we are
justified in adopting as provisional truth those beliefs that seem to work
best. Pragmatists question the fact that human thoughts and beliefs should
wholly fail to describe the world around us. Pragmatists gave equal weight to
experience and "allowed not all beliefs have their truth-values determined by
experience directly" (Hale, Wright, ed., p.311).
"`What would be better for us to believe! This sounds very like a
definition of truth. The greatest enemy of any one of our truths may be the
rest of our truths," James suggests in Pragmatism (p. 43). If truth in James
is an agreement between the ideas and reality, how could such agreement be
determined? Ideas, as James states, hold opinions, beliefs, make statements,
define concepts and propose theory. Reality, on the other hand, is made of
experiences, in which the specific facts, objects and events involved. Joseph
Yesselman suggests that consequences of an idea could be determined by
practical, ethical, moral, intellectual and theoretical assumptions, when the
agreement - by assimilation, validation, corroboration and verification
(Encyclopedia Britannica Online).
Truth for pragmatists became a matter of coherence among beliefs.
Pragmatism asks its usual question, James assures in Pragmatism: "Grant an idea
or belief to be true," it says, "what concrete difference will its being true
make in anyone`s actual life? How will the truth be realized? What experiences
will be different from those which would obtain if the belief were false? What,
in short, is the truth`s cash-value in experiential terms"" (p. 97). The
pragmatic theory of truth, Ralf Walker proposes, is the theory that truth is
constituted by conformity to (usually future) experience. It seeks to tell
what the truth of a judgement consists in, or to exhibit the essential nature
of truth. He argues that James`s theory of truth appears to be a theory about
what truth consists in. James, as Walker states, accepts that truth is a
relation between a proposition and something that is independent of what anyone
believes. Only because James thinks of it as constituted, not by beliefs, but
by experiences, he takes it to be independent of and prior to human beliefs.
For James, the truth of a belief consists in its consonance with experience,
because alternative theories - inconsistent with one another - can each predict
exactly the same empirical consequences. Walker assures that pragmatists must
"accept coherence as a determinant of truth as well as consonance with
experience"(Hale, Wright, ed., p.314). James, in his truth theory, allows a
special place for experience; regards the facts as obtaining independently of
anyone`s experiences. "Pragmatism`s only test of probable truth is what works
best in the way of leading us, what fits every part of life best and combines
with the collectivity of experience`s demands, nothing being omitted"
(Pragmatism, p. 44).
According to the Ruth Putnam, pragmatism of James is a philosophy that
"preserves as cordial a relation with facts" and treats "religious
constructions... cordially as well"(Putnam, ed., p.6). Gale notices that James
strictly adheres to the commonsense dualism between experiences and the
physical objects and events that are perceived and referred to by the
experiences (Putnam, ed., p. 49-68).
Is truth something that society agrees on? Is absolutism real? Do you
believe in the truth because of your self-interest? The debate between James
and Royce went on for years. Did they solve the problem of "truth"? Could
there be a winner in the debate? Royce metaphysics is based on the fact that
error exists. Royce compares the meaning of word "truth" to "success". "When
we seek truth, we indeed seek successful ideas,"- he underlines. He argues
that James was wrong talking about his truth theory. In Royce opinion, when
something is "true" it does not mean "expedient", therefore he considers
pragmatists view as false. He states that the difference between truth and
expediency is that the pragmatist fails to meet its own criterion of not doing
"unnecessary violence to common sense" for what would count as an adequate
account of truth. He tries to force that James either remains immanent in
human experience or commits himself to a doctrine, which refutes itself, or
permits his analysis of how we arrive at judgments of error to be supplemented
with an account of "the logical conditions" of error. He argues that the
intended object of our every thought is "embraced" in a single overarching
"infinite thought" - and it presupposes the existence of an Absolute being who
thinks it (Putnam, ed., 186-214).
Hookway states that James transformed Peirce`s theory of meaning a theory
of truth. Each of them offers a rule for clarifying our thoughts and each
seeks clarification by looking at how accepting the thought would modify our
practical plans and expectations. Peirce saw his pragmatism as part of a
philosophical system, which was realist in its orientation and grounded
philosophy in a system of categories, but James, on the other hand, embraced
his pragmatism as a means of overcoming this conception of philosophy. Peirce
described pragmatism as a "logical doctrine" and a "theory of logical
analysis", his pragmatism was presented as a methodological rule, considering
it a part of logic. Peirce considered his pragmatism a doctrine of logic,
while James`s - a doctrine of philosophy, arguing that James was incapable of
logic. Hookway argued that "If James and Peirce have different aims in view in
seeking a method for clarifying concepts and propositions, then it may be
unsurprising if they light upon different features of their meanings or
significance." James and Peirce in their doctrines intend to highlight the
same concept, but they end up with different philosophical purposes. Peirce
presents his pragmatist principle as a means to achieving a very definite goal
which is closely linked to the aims of logical investigation: logic is