There have been many different propositions related to the nature of truth and reality throughout the history of philosophy. The Correspondence Theory of Truth states that propositions can only be true if the facts and ideas that they are stating correspond to reality. People can only say that the sky is blue, for instance, if the sky really is demonstrably blue. While different philosophers have been trying to debunk this intuitive and the basic idea for a long time, the Correspondence Theory of Truth looks better than the objections to it.
Reality and Mental Objects
Some philosophers object to the Correspondence Theory of Truth because they more or less point out that reality, as it is perceived by humans, is not objective in its own right. The sky may seem to be blue, but the sky is a concept as perceived by humans, and ‘blue’ is a mental object that exists in the minds of humans. They deny that a reality made of mental objects could possibly be objectively real. However, in order to even analyze the veracity of the Correspondence Theory of Truth, people are using mental objects and their own minds. People are doing this all the time anyway. There is no way of getting around this, so humans have no choice but to trust out senses and perceptions of reality. Deconstructing reality beyond that point creates a situation where people cannoteven really use their own brains, which is not going to help anyone find the truth. The objections to the Correspondence Theory of Truth eat each other.
Humanity’s Reality Matters
The reality that humans perceive is more complicated than it seems. As humans acquire tools that allow them to detect things that were beyond human senses, that much is obvious. However, even the act of questioning whether the reality perceived by humans is real or not requires the use of human perceptions and biases. The perceptions, biases, and mental objects that create reality for humans still have value. If there is a reality beyond that, it almost seems like it isn’t going to functionally matter for humanity’s purposes. Humans experience the world through mental objects, and the Correspondence Theory of Truth helps humans understand the reality that is lived by humans. It functionally describes truth.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth encourages reasoning based on empirical evidence. People can only say that the sky is blue if the sky is blue. In other words, given the definition of ‘sky’ and the definition of ‘blue,’ people must look for evidence that the sky is blue in order to agree that it is. Empiricism is a philosophy that has a long track record of helping humanity understand the world. Empiricism and rationality force people to examine their own biases, which can allow people to compensate for the problems that might arise with constructing reality out of mental objects. Encouraging the endless skepticism involved with the objections to the Correspondence Theory of Truth does not help people understand the world. People need to make some prior assumptions in order to think anything.
The objections to the Correspondence Theory of Truth are rooted in hyper-skepticism and the largely useless observation that humans have an inherently biased view of reality. The human view of reality involves mental objects and frames, but objecting to the Correspondence Theory of Truth also requires mental objects and frames. People cannot escape using them, which makes it fundamentally useless to try to think without them and perceive truth without them. It makes more sense to encourage the empirical approach to reason, and the Correspondence Theory of Truth does that. People can only accept claims as true if they correspond to evidence-based reality, which is a way of modeling the world that makes sense according to human needs and even human limitations. The human perception of the world is flawed, but it has value, and the Correspondence Theory of Truth can help people understand it.