What do you think?
Rate this book
The problem of truth
This is a reproduction of a book published before 1923. This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book.
100 pages, Paperback
Published September 11, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 9, 2022
Great summary of current theories relating to the problem of truth.
March 9, 2017
The problem of Truth today is that it no longer seems to matter to many people.
About a hundred years ago the very nature of Truth was something of a philosophical hot potato. Immediately prior to reading this book I had read William James's take on the same thing. This book considers James's pragmatist theory alongside the competition.
Wildon Carr attractively introduces his comparative study by stating that it 'presumes no previous study of philosophy nor special knowledge of its problems.' Truth for dummies, I can handle that.
Regardless of which theory you prefer the author first establishes the understanding that we only know what we know through senseperception, therefore the 'reality then, the knowledge of which is truth, is not the immediate reality of feeling but the inferred reality of thought.'
He sets about summarising the realist, idealist, and pragmatist view in turn. The later was the recently formulated theory, which Carr distinguishes as one in which 'truth is made. In all other theories truth is found,' a more succinct way of putting it than I could find in James's own book, though he would probably have found something wrong with it.
In short the three theories, each of which he rejects as definitive, he encapsulates like this:
(1) That it is a correspondence between the idea and the reality; (2) That it is the coherence of the idea in a consistent and harmonious whole; and (3) That it is a value that we ourselves give to our ideas.
The alternative theory he plumps for is one close to pragmatism with an essential difference put forward by the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who was a friend of James. If you can understand this sentence then you will understand the difference:
'Bergson teaches not only that all material reality is illusion, but also that this very illusion is the work of the intellect, that the intellect is formed for this purpose, intellect and matter being correlative'
I think I understand, but in truth I'm not sure?
About a hundred years ago the very nature of Truth was something of a philosophical hot potato. Immediately prior to reading this book I had read William James's take on the same thing. This book considers James's pragmatist theory alongside the competition.
Wildon Carr attractively introduces his comparative study by stating that it 'presumes no previous study of philosophy nor special knowledge of its problems.' Truth for dummies, I can handle that.
Regardless of which theory you prefer the author first establishes the understanding that we only know what we know through senseperception, therefore the 'reality then, the knowledge of which is truth, is not the immediate reality of feeling but the inferred reality of thought.'
He sets about summarising the realist, idealist, and pragmatist view in turn. The later was the recently formulated theory, which Carr distinguishes as one in which 'truth is made. In all other theories truth is found,' a more succinct way of putting it than I could find in James's own book, though he would probably have found something wrong with it.
In short the three theories, each of which he rejects as definitive, he encapsulates like this:
(1) That it is a correspondence between the idea and the reality; (2) That it is the coherence of the idea in a consistent and harmonious whole; and (3) That it is a value that we ourselves give to our ideas.
The alternative theory he plumps for is one close to pragmatism with an essential difference put forward by the French philosopher Henri Bergson, who was a friend of James. If you can understand this sentence then you will understand the difference:
'Bergson teaches not only that all material reality is illusion, but also that this very illusion is the work of the intellect, that the intellect is formed for this purpose, intellect and matter being correlative'
I think I understand, but in truth I'm not sure?
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews