Pragmatism's Conception Of Truth

Not even just about anti-Semitism, but articles and videos talking about daily international news. A lot of the content on this site are opinions from various authors about events happening around the world. Some of the articles talk about the presidential candidates while others about the widespread hatred of Jews. There is a very wide spread of mostly hateful, opinionated content on this website. Slander and stereotyping are the two main techniques of persuasion that are used. Other Techniques used are anti-Jewish tropes and stereotypes, propaganda and mixing truths with fiction/distortions. Most of the articles use stereotyping to prove their points. In one of the articles talking about Jews lying about their history the author says “Jews lie. Jews have always lied. And most assuredly, Jews are still lying today about everything that has to do with themselves and their sordid history.” This is classifying all the Jews together saying that they all lie, which is an exaggeration and a stereotype. But the author is trying to make his point by stereotyping that all Jews lie because some of them do. Both the techniques of slander and stereotyping are very common in anti-Semitism. Both of these techniques are seen in the film that we watched earlier “The Eternal Jew”. These techniques are still used today and stem from the early beginning of anti-Semitism, including the Bible and early Christian

“What is truth?” It is a very confusing word since people cannot definitely describe what is identical truth. Where is the border of lie and truth which makes them different and separates them? People tend not to tell every detail, and it makes the other party understand situation in a wrong way. For example, one boy fought with someone in school also fell off stairs at the same time. Afterwards he goes home and his mother asks him “what happened to him?” He just tells her that he fell off the stairs however, this is not the exact truth. Does this kind of situations define truth? Therefore, truth is a mysterious matter.

In Plato’s Theaetetus, the dialog between Socrates and his student, Theaetetus, sets up the argument that knowledge is true belief that is adequately justified. Although there are many examples that prove Plato’s suggestion, people such as Edmund Gettier have questioned and disproved the notion of knowledge as justified true belief. In response to Gettier’s findings, many have tried to modify or find an alternative to the Justified True Belief model in search for the true definition of knowledge. In this paper, I will outline and discuss Plato’s Justified True Belief argument, outline and discuss Gettier’s response to Plato’s argument, and lastly, present and analyze four solutions to the Gettier problems.

James thinks that for many of our beliefs, the evidence plays only a small part in determining what we believe. He says what determines the beliefs we have is hard to say, because we

     First of all we have, what is truth to me? Well for my definition of truth we can turn right to Mr. Webster and see that he says, that truth is:

Truth can be seen as objective or subjective by people. By definition, objective truth is a truth that is the same for everyone no matter what. Our beliefs, whatever they are, have no bearing on the facts of the world around us. The purpose of this paper is to suggest that truth is likely to be considered objective. Truth of a matter is not dependant on someone's beliefs.

Nearly everything we say and read has been affected by opinion or perspective. Suppose you examine a lemon. One person might define it as sour, juicy, and yellow. This description is known as your truth claim, but what if someone else describes it as blue because they are unaware of their color blindness. Both people can argue that they are telling the truth because it is based on their own opinion. Now let’s imagine that we are all knowingly colorblind. No one has access to the true color of the lemon. The lemon is yellow, but we believe it’s blue. In this case, truth is impossible to define because one cannot understand what they can’t actually see. You cannot define what the truth is without knowing all the

all the truth existing in the world, and humans cannot create the truth by themselves. God’s truth

This philosophical study will define the traditional theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) that Edmund L. Gettier refutes by proposing countermanding methods of justification in the acquisition of knowledge. JTB has historically defined the important equation that knowledge can be conceptually deciphered through the subjective belief of an individual. Historically, the “justification” of a belief was found to be sufficient to identify the belief as a form of objective knowledge. However, Gettier’s problem defines the limitation of belief, which can often be false through distortions of sensory perception and/or personal biases. Gettier refutes the traditional theory of justification for knowledge by exposing the subjective nature of belief as a derailment of true knowledge. Therefore, it is important to understand the missing definition of the “justification” of knowledge, which Gettier exposes in his theory against JTB. Critically, Gettier does propose a need for a more thorough examination of the classification of justification, yet he is own theory presents equally subjective limitations on the origins of knowledge through the distortions of human sensory perception. In essence, this study will define the traditional theory of Justified True Belief (JTB) that Edmund L. Gettier refutes by proposing countermanding methods of justification in the acquisition of knowledge.

the things that are true, the quality or state of being true, a statement or idea that is true or

The important thing here, I believe, is that truth isn’t outside power, or lacking in power: contrary to a myth whose history and functions would repay further study, truth isn’t the reward of free spirits, the children of protracted solitude, nor the privilege of those who have succeeded in liberating themselves. Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. And it induces regular effects of power”.

As this semester has come to a close we reach the inevitable end question, “what is truth.” This is a question which many of the authors we have read works from have differing opinions of. Through reading the works and listening to lectures through this semester I have come to the conclusion that truth is essentially whatever the person who is thinking about it decides that it should be. The people that decide what their form of truth is usually get it from people which have some type of power over them. We use these people which have a form of power over us to help decide what our own truths are and how we will go about enacting them. Christians for example do not believe in gay marriage. It is not part of their truth and most likely never will be. This is because they believe in the bible, and a god (higher power) which tells them that gay marriage is wrong. They use this information to decide what their truth is and how they will live out their lives. On the flip side of this there are many people who were raised, or influenced by people who are completely fine with gay marriage therefore those people whom they influence (the people I spoke of originally) also have that “truth” that gay marriage is fine. The thing that makes this important is the way in which both sides of this spectrum will defend their truth, and act as though it is the correct truth. When everything is essentially boiled down and looked at, truth is nothing more than an opinion one holds. Even things

“Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East. ” This statement, a cornerstone of pro-Israel activism and discourse, and the bane of activism for Palestinian rights, in fact reveals the complexity of propaganda, and of the critical importance of narratives and framing. It perfectly embodies George Orwell’s astute observation that “All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth. ” This paper argues that Israel is particularly adept at using propaganda because Israel is able to use it not just domestically, to also cultivate a positive image internationally, particularly in Western democracies, and especially the US. Furthermore, in targeting Western audiences, Israel is adapt at simultaneously appealing to different demographic

The two main texts engage postmodern ideas through the themes and content of their stories. The postmodern idea of relative truth is the main concept that comes under fire, with its subsets (such as moral ambiguity and anti-absolutism) being engaged as well. In the Great Divorce, heaven is described in extremely concrete ways. Everything there is as hard as diamonds, while the people visiting from hell are ghostly and vapid. In these descriptions, Lewis makes a point of the absolute reality of heavenly things. Meanwhile, his descriptions of the ghosts and Grey Town symbolize the futileness of earthly matters. Lewis, in this way, makes a case for absolute truth. This directly attacks the postmodern idea of relative or subjective truth. Lewis also seems to make a claim that if there is in fact an absolute truth, then there must be some sense of absolute morality; there is good and evil in the world.

True or false, probably a term most people are familiar with. Such a thing seems quite simple to comprehend, however determining whether something is true or not isn’t the easiest of tasks. In order to determine if something is false, we must first establish what the truth is. The knowledge issue this brings up is: How do we know if absolute truth exists, and if it doesn’t what type of truth does exist? This is dependent on our perception of the situation and our ability to reason out a conclusion. For this essay I will use science, mathematics, religion and ethics as my areas of knowledge. I will present both aspects of this statement and conclude with my own point of view.