Correspondence & Coherence Theory of Truth

Many people claimed that the post-modern era has ended. Numerous people exposed the weaknesses of post-modernism and the most popular argument is that post-modernism is self-defeating. The comment made by Charles Gardner Geyh is worth our attention and further reflection. He says, "to attempt to reject postmodernism entirely is to endeavor to stand outside one's age, to remove oneself from its everyday life and its cultural intellectual currents." 

What captivated me in Geyh's statement pertaining our attempt to reject Post-modernism whole sell. Why we cannot reject post-modernism totally? If it is self defeating, why we should ever care at all? Actually, this is not as simple as we thought. Our answer is depend highly on the definition of post-modernism, we are using. Of course yes, if we define that post-modernism as an idea that claims, there is no absolute-truth then as implication, post-modernism sure cannot set their feet on the ground. 

However, if we try to see post-modernism as an anti-foundationalist movement, which mean that everyone are approaching the truth through their subjective lens and hence, nobody can say I found the "purest" truth and reality.  This definition of post-modernism as movement is meant at the beginning to oppose the modernist's idea and movement which boldly argues that we can objectively analyze the reality and found the unbiased truth (ironically they are not considering the internal veil or the horizon of subjectivity). And not to deny the objective truth per se.

In other word, this version of postmodernism can be simply being seen as a movement against the old modernism. Moreover, this notion of post-modernism usually depend on the notion of coherence theory of truth, that is to say, truth is what contribute to a larger picture and cohere with our general and universal sense of the world, base upon myriads scientific traditions and converged rational data of our world at the moment. The coherence theory of truth cannot be stand alone as a way that one, understand truth or reality. Having only this perspectives, it could sway us to a confusion since truth is now depend on many different independent scientific traditions that often, contradicting each other and debunking each other perpetually. All theories are in competitions, the more cohere they are, the more true they are.Despite of that thus far, we can still say that Post-modernism in the sense above is not totally dead. 

If we reject entirely the spirit, it is so true that we are indeed removing ourselves  to our intellectual current like what Geyth says. Post-modernism actually awaken us from the slumber of ignorance and prejudice. This view will lead us one steap ahead of modernist, who says that we can grasp the truth perfectly without any distortion. I think, post-modernism is right when it says that modernism is essentially naïve yet at the same time, post-modernism itself is limited, and cannot explain fully the relation between man, truth and reality. Taken up to extreme, it can even lead us to "absurdity" as Godfrey Ozumba and Christopher Udofia argues, post-modernism convert knowledge to be mere "opinions." At the end of the day, if coherence theory only left in our window of thinking, reality and truth is all about what we think or even feel as real and true (Post-Truth). 

There is another lens that can enrich us. It is the idea of correspondence theory of truth of pre-modern era, to which any serious thinker should consider and in fact, this idea has been hold by majority of thinker throughout history. Mortimer Adler (1902-2001), explains that correspondence theory of truth asserts,

(1) There is a reality independent of the mind.

(2) The truth, exits in the mind when the mind agrees with, conforms or corresponded to independent reality. 

(3) The principle of non-contradiction apply as an ontological principle. 

By plain and common sense, we can affirms these three propositions. Even many post-modernist thinker can also agree with things above. When we say, the day is sunny is only can be true insofar there is a bright sun shinning outside, and not raining.  Otherwise, language is useless. Derrida was the most extremes example of a person, who believe that word has no reference to reality only refer to the other meaning in other word. If it's true, why he even bother to write a book to propose his theory, and wishing someone to understand him at all? Although we agree that there is a correspondence between man, reality and truth, there are some questions still. Why there are so many truth out there? 

Why there are so many version of reality? Which one is the truest which one is not? all are true or all are false? In this matter, correspondence theory truth alone is not enough. In balance, we need the coherence theory of truth as well, to help us to decide and conclude, which claims can make sense of all data given, so we can know which reality is real, which reality isn't. To examine every contradicting statement about truth and reality in equal manner for both cannot be true at the same time. It is illogical. So If we can combine both, coherence and correspondence understanding of truth in constant dialectical movement, we will move one step closer away from the Utopias of modernism and also at the one hand, we are not fall into the prey of extreme version of post-modernism, "anything goes."

Correspondence theory of truth help us to realize that there is a truth and reality out there (Objective truth) to be found out there whereby coherence theory of truth help us to put all the pieces and puzzles of truth and reality, which in a way help us to see the truth and reality more clearly (Mark of truth). More surprisingly, the proponent of both views can indeed open us to a wider view of both natural and religious voice in regards to reality and truth. The opinions will not only stayed as opinions forever but hopefully, they can move us to one step closer to truth and reality, as it is, better ahead through a constant dialectics between.