The Five Major Theories of Truth, and How They Define Our World, Part Two.

Last week, we started our overview of the five major theories of truth. We saved the best two frameworks for last, as these final theories are diametrically opposed in their "truthiness". Let me show you what I mean.

The fourth theory, the constructivist theory of truth, posits that truth is created by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and is part shaped through the power struggles within a community.

It views all of our knowledge as "constructed", because it doesn't reflect any transcendent realities (observations above subjective interpretation). Instead, perceptions of truth are viewed as dependent on convention, human perception, and social experience.

Constructivists believe that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality and gender, are social constructed.

A very interesting and compelling theory, its proponents like Giambattista Vico and Marx, were some of the early pioneers of the premise that truth can be socially constructed, going on to observe that "ideological knowledge is an epiphenomenal expression of the relation of material forces in a given economic arrangement".

While not popular in contemporary discussion, this type of truth is actively played out and perpetrated throughout the use of social media and technological devices; where ones perception can be informed by and entirely dictated by the ad platforms and groups they "join", creating a microcosm of "truth" which may not reflect a more objective reality, and can potentially cause conflict with the former.

The last version of truth, Consensus theory, is my least favorite of the varieties of truth, though it does have its place in specific applications.

This definition of truth, as you can guess, states that whatever is agreed upon is true. The majority wins, whether by vote, like, upvote, or public survey.

Hardly advocated by any philosopher or intellectual/logician, it's easy to see why.

History is ripe with the majority being categorically on the wrong side of history, and unfortunately, with many people being duped by appearances and rhetoric, relying on popular opinion and impression, it is one of the least reliable ways of divining truth.

That said, we see millions made, and social media platforms function on this popularity, "like" and "upvote" type dynamic.

Which isn't to say that using this method is bad, or incorrect, it just reveals that people all use different barometers to determine what they "like" and "dislike", with all varying tastes and opinions therein. It can be personally true or "true" by measure of mass opinion, but that doesn't mean it's based on a good foundation, or that this "truth" accurately represents an individuals personal struggle, or even reality at all.

As with all of these discussions, it is markedly important to be able to, "entertain an idea without accepting it". We encourage you to explore these concepts with curiosity, and refer all claims back through your own personal filter and logical framework of the world.

Haven't consciously cultivated these frameworks yet? No problem! Our free upcoming courses aim to teach you how to create your own logically consistent frameworks for making sense of the world, with our first course studying the difference between dialectical and rhetorical logic.

Thanks for reading, and be sure to subscribe to stay up to date on when these courses, and our weekly newsletter, drop!