The next point I would like to illustrate is, probably, the annoying one that throws a wrench into things: the problem with the correspondence theory of truth. The correspondence theory of truth claims that truth is that which conforms to reality. For example, the statement that "the earth is round" is true if the earth is, in correspondence with reality, round.
Here's the problem: we have no way of knowing, with 100 percent absolute certainty, that a claim corresponds with reality for all practical purposes. Sure, I can be one hundred percent certain that saying, "I am not omniscient," and, "I (whatever 'I' am) feels sad," corresponds with reality. I am also one hundred percent certain that there is a set, objective reality out there somewhere. Beyond a few other similar examples, however, everything is called into question. This is because there are barriers in between the whole of external reality and my internal self.
First, there is the barrier of comprehension between myself and reality. I may not even be able to grasp actual reality and simply miss major parts of it. I, in the most literal sense, can't handle the truth. It is beyond my mind's capability to process. A way to look at this is to compare the comprehension and understanding of reality an amoeba possesses to that of a human, and the gap of comprehension becomes easy to understand.
Next is the gap of perception. The only thing I am really aware of is my qualia, or subjective personal experience. I don't know what prompts my qualia and how that exactly relates to reality. The classic example regarding this is the brain in a vat: I could, in fact, be a floating nervous system that is prompted to believe exactly what I am seeing, even though what I perceive is not correspondent with reality at all.
There is also the barrier of linguistics. This simply refers to the a problem of communication breaking down when our language tools cannot adequately describe something we perceive or create discrepancies between different people. For example, let's say you see a new color. You have never seen it before and cannot relate it to any other color you have experienced. Let's say you want to describe it to a friend. If they cannot ever see the color, how could explain the color?
In short, this definition of truth fails our maxim. If we are to follow it to its logical end, it leads us incapable of finding out correct information, and, therefore, preventing us from making the right decisions to get the absolute desired outcomes. As I said, there is a objective reality out there, but we are forever cut off from it. We must either modify or change the definition of truth and look at it in a different way. I am sure most of you already have answers or objections.
I will post more tomorrow.
