Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Correspondence theory is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle. [2] [3] This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined solely by how it relates to a reality; that is, by whether it accurately describes that reality.
Correspondence theory of truth; Criteria of truth; D. Deflationary theory of truth; Dialetheism; E. ... This page was last edited on 9 May 2023, at 16:16 (UTC).
Correspondence theory centres around the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying what is known as "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words, and other symbols. [19] Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved without analysing additional factors.
The correspondence theory of truth states that truth consists in correspondence with reality. [7] Or in the words of Thomas Aquinas: "A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality". [14] Truthmaker theory is closely related to correspondence theory; some authors see it as a modern version of correspondence theory. [15]
The coherentist theory of justification, which may be interpreted as relating to either theory of coherent truth, characterizes epistemic justification as a property of a belief only if that belief is a member of a coherent set. What distinguishes coherentism from other theories of justification is that the set is the primary bearer of ...
Spinoza engaged in correspondence with Willem van Blijenbergh, an amateur Calvinist theologian, who sought Spinoza's view on the nature of evil and sin. Whereas Blijenbergh deferred to the authority of scripture for theology and philosophy, Spinoza told him not solely to look at scripture for truth or anthropomorphize God.
In group theory, the correspondence theorem [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] (also the lattice theorem, [9] and variously and ambiguously the third and fourth ...
If one is not willing to accept Russell's theory, then it seems wise to challenge either substitution or redistribution, which seem to be the other weakest points in the argument. Perry (1996), for example, rejects both of these principles, proposing to replace them with certain weaker, qualified versions that do not allow the slingshot ...