The correspondence theory of truth states that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory is opposed to the coherence theory of truth which holds that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by its relations to other statements rather than its relation to the world.
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs. This type of theory attempts to posit a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or facts on the other.
The problem with this theory is that it does not take into account the nature of language as an emergent phenomenon that doesn’t exist “outside” the world.
So, what is the “actual state of affairs”, and how does it relate to the concept of discourse? This thought gets more concrete when it is approached through the concept of media. Does media represent the actual state of affairs? It seems enough to consider Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man to understand the picture behind this.
In everyday life one encounters this actual state of affairs in statements such as “I am not that kind of person” or “this is who I am”. In fact, what kind of person one is is constructed precisely in such sentences.
To conclude: the world is chaotic, and each statement and belief of its actual state is an (initial) approximation. To state or believe that X is “true” is just saying that X corresponds with my conception of what is “true”.
The approximation of reality gets more accurate through rational discourse. The product of this process is consciousness, which is then transformed into action.
Pingback: Language as collapsing the state | To learn something