What do you think?
Rate this book
The Problem of Truth
A problem of philosophy is completely different from a problem of science. In science we accept our subject-matter as it is presented in unanalysed experience; in philosophy we examine the first principles and ultimate questions that concern conscious experience itself. The problem of truth is a problem of philosophy. It is not a problem of merely historical interest, but a present problem—a living controversy, the issue of which is undecided. Its present interest may be said to centre round the doctrine of pragmatism, which some fifteen years ago began to challenge the generally accepted principles of philosophy. In expounding this problem of truth, my main purpose has been to make clear to the reader the nature of a problem of philosophy and to disclose the secret of its interest. My book presumes no previous study of philosophy nor special knowledge of its problems. The theories that I have shown in conflict on this question are, each of them, held by some of the leaders of philosophy. In presenting them, therefore, I have tried to let the full dialectical force of the argument appear. I have indicated my own view, that the direction in which the solution lies is in the new conception of life and the theory of knowledge given to us in the philosophy of Bergson. If I am right, the solution is not, like pragmatism, a doctrine of the nature of truth, but a theory of knowledge in which {vi} the dilemma in regard to truth does not arise. But, as always in philosophy, the solution of one problem is the emergence of another. There is no finality.
My grateful acknowledgment is due to my friend Professor S. Alexander, who kindly read my manuscript and assisted me with most valuable suggestions, and also to my friend Dr. T. Percy Nunn for a similar service.
My grateful acknowledgment is due to my friend Professor S. Alexander, who kindly read my manuscript and assisted me with most valuable suggestions, and also to my friend Dr. T. Percy Nunn for a similar service.
78 pages, Paperback
Published December 20, 2014
5 people want to read
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