This is a Response to Misty's Question.

So, I know we kind of touched base on this topic in class today, but I feel as if there is so much more to say on the matter. If only we didn't get off topic and onto the State of the Union Address that is happening tonight. Anyways, Misty asked two questions. I'm not so sure I understand what you were asking in your first question, so I will answer the second. I don't think the world would be better if everyone told the truth. Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean. If people just told the truth more so in general or if people told the truth all the time. If people were to speak the truth all the time sure there would a few benefits, but the negative effects would be more apparent. A world with only truth would be a terrifying place. Imagine the chaos that would break out over the simple truth. The way I see it is that most people like to be lied to. If they are told the truth, if might not be something they want to hear. So, with the simple truth, the world they have constructed for themselves will be destroyed. How many times has someone told you, "Be honest!! Come on, I can take the truth." And then you tell them what you think, the honest truth...and they don't take it well? This tends to be the case. I think that people might really want to hear the truth, but at the same time they don't. So they want your lie to become the truth, a false truth (oxymoron much!?), that they have cornered you into telling. You see, the world cannot function with one extreme. The truth comes with lies, just as good comes with evil. They coexist.The truth cannot exist without lies, because then there would be not truth. It would just be.

Correspondence or Coherence of Truth?

When I started the original assignment to basically define the two popular different theories on truth I though the correspondence theory was the obvious "right" version. However, after the class discussion I realized that the coherence of truth theory is actually more, well true, for lack of a better word. At least in my opinion. Although it is much easier to understand the correspondence truth, your statement either matches the surrounding environment or it does not, the other one makes more sense. Even if the coherence truth is more difficult to understand. It just takes awhile, at least in my case, to fully understand what that theory states. It seems to be more from a logical standpoint, which I understand. I think there was an example used whether or not there was a tree outside of the classroom. I think that example was used for the coherent truth. Anyways, it was stated that what if the object outside was not a tree? What if it was a hallucination, a hologram, a dream? If we were to go outside and further observe this supposed "tree," we would try and confirm that it truly is a tree. And we could only draw the conclusion that it is a tree because that is the name we have for this object. And, the object outside of classroom matches up to this description. Whether the tree outside is imaginary or not is not particularly important, but from the knowledge we have, it is a tree. Even if this were to be a dream, the object in our dream would still be considered to be a tree since that is what we know it as. So, can we really go by the correspondence of truth theory? All that theory does is really say that things are true or false. But, how do we know what is true? We can't, not really, can we? It's almost as if we as humans make our own truths up, don't we? And doing that can make anything a dream, can't it? Because then there is no truth. Only a truth that we have made up. I guess this is the question I am proposing to you, my fellow classmates.