Free Custom «Tarski's Truth» Essay Paper

Introduction

The concept of truth is a miscellaneous and ambiguous in diverse fields of science, namely, in philosophy, logic, mathematics, linguistics, religion, medicine, and psychiatry. It has been investigated and developed since ancient times. There are numerous theories and approaches to its definition and broad explication; however, all of them have particular drawbacks, pitfalls, and controversies.

One of the prominent scholars who has explored and enhanced the concept of truth in the scope of linguistics in the twentieth century is Tarski (1933). The investigator has made a notable contribution to semantics. An in-depth insight into the notion of truth provided by Tarski (1933) has resulted in the truth theory development. The present paper aims to analyse Tarski’s truth theory and explore approaches to the issue in question presented by such scholars as Smullyan (2001), Blackburn and Simmons (1999), Boolos, Burgess and Jeffrey (2002).

Analysis and Discussion

Tarski (1933) conceived the theory of truth as an alternative solution to the Liar Paradox. The solution of the dilemma of the given Paradox is urgent and topical since it challenges comprehension of the concept of truth in general and any theoretical approach to its understanding in particular. Therefore, the author of the truth theory that is currently explored incorporates only clear and generally acceptable terms in order to avoid further potential misconception of the analysed phenomenon due to the use of undefined semantic words.

 

Type of service

Type of assignment

Title of your paper *

Academic level

Pages

Timeframe

Spacing

Currency

  Order now

The Liar Paradox may be outlined in the following way: if a person states that his or her utterance is false, and this utterance is really a lie, the statement is true, which means that this person tells a lie. Such a scheme of truth understanding is rather controversial since it undermines the basic conception of the truth. Tarski (1933) distinguishes three major aims of the developed truth theory, namely, philosophical, methodological, and logical ones. The philosophical goal of the theory aligns with the general purpose of the given theory development since Tarski (1933) positions the theory as being a philosophical one. Hence, the primary target of the whole study is to define the truth (Tarski, 1933). The author of the theory incorporates the classical conception of the truth and aims to construct on its basis “a materially adequate and formally correct definition of the term ‘true sentence” (Tarski, 1933, p. 152). Moreover, the scholar highlights considerable challenges, difficulties, and antinomies enclosed in the process of truth identification. Therefore, Tarski (1933) subdivides the aim of definition into two subsidiary tasks. To be more precise, there are a material task to capture the precise and relevant content of the notion of concern and a formal task to align it with the crucial standards of correct definition and logical consistency.

The methodological aim of the theory developed by Tarski (1933) is to identify the key methodological concepts as well as to establish consequent outcomes in the field of the deductive sciences, or in the scope of metamathematics. Finally, the logical aim may be regarded as a contribution to the development of the logical structure of the concept of truth and proper incorporation of the theory.

The Tarski’s theory will be explored through several key aspects. First, it is important to analyse the explication of the notion of truth in linguistics presented by the scholar. The approach incorporated by Tarski (1033) is called the ‘semantic conception of truth.’ The scholar highlights that the notion of truth should be regarded as an expression of the sentence property. To be more precise, the scientist accounts for this approach in the following way: “We count the concept of truth which is discussed here among the concepts of semantics, and the problem of defining truth proves to be closely related to the more general problem of setting up the foundations of theoretical semantics” (Tarski, 1933, p. 11). Hence, Tarski (1933) highlights the multidimensional nature of the study and versatility of aspects which need exploration, identification, and in-depth insight. It is important that the author develops the course of analysis in the contextual framework of other related concepts. For instance, the significant notions of designation and satisfaction are also included in the discussion.

Stay Connected

Live Chat Order now

The next significant dimension of Tarski’s theory of the truth is the relevance of its practical application. The scholar distinguishes between two types of languages in the given context, namely, natural and formalized ones. This classification is crucial since Tarski states that it is possible to apply the truth predicates in accordance to his theory only in formalized languages. The reason is that the scope of natural languages, or the spoken ones, reveals high level of vagueness and controversy concerning the currently examined problem. To be more precise, the author of the theory underlines that the potential solution to this dilemma “can have only an approximate character. Roughly speaking, the approximation consists in replacing a natural 8 language . . . by one whose structure is exactly specified, and which diverges from the given language as little as possible” (Tarski, 1933, p. 89). Hence, the apparent lack of formalization, semantically closed nature, and absence of relevant structure of the natural languages impose them on vagueness to interpret the concept of the truth.

Furthermore, it is essential to examine the hub of the whole truth theory, namely, Tarski’s undefinability theorem. The overall content of the theorem refers to the average formal systems and aims to define the truth within such systems. The major outcome of the theorem proved in 1936 should be understood in the following way: the truth of any constituent element of a standardized model of the formal system cannot be proved within this system. The scholar involved Gödel number system and syntactical method in the process of proving the theorem.

Actually, Tarski (1033) presents a study of ultimate significance for the field of linguistics and philosophy. The approach to truth definition and application in the formalized languages has witnessed an essential enhancement due to his theory of truth. Nonetheless, there are particular antinomies, inconsistencies, and controversies within his study.

First, it is apparent that Tarski (1933) made a major step concerning the identification of the concept of truth; however, he did not manage to eliminate contentious semantics properly. Tarski (1933) incorporated a single example to explain the way the notion of truth may be defined. Moreover, Smullyan (2001) observed that Tarski failed to demonstrate the way the approach would be generalised.

Second, the focus on the term has shifted away from technicalities, and the major emphasis is placed on the general matters in the current course of time. Originally, the theory had three main goals presented above. Under those aims, Tarski (1933) sought to contribute to reinforcement of three respective aspects in the field of science. Using semantic elimination in defining terms, Tarski contributed to the emergence of modern logic and philosophical language (Blackburn & Simmons, 1999). Nevertheless, there are serious controversies and dilemmas in the given scope of research. For example, the question whether the theory can be classified as a deflationary or correspondence theory types continues to challenge the modern scholars nowadays.

Third, according to Tarski’s vision, a language may be interpreted properly and constructively when all constituent sentences hold the meanings that can qualify them to be true or false. Boolos, Burgess and Jeffrey (2002) support this position stating that such an approach permits the determination of the veracity of truism or falsity. Thereby, new perspectives and antinomies appear.

Fourth, delving into the essence of the concepts of language and metalanguage, Tarski (2006) indicates that when discussing a particular language (the object language), the definition ought to be provided in another language (metalanguage). It is also expected that the latter should comprise a replica of the object language to the intent that anything said in the language can also be said in the other language (metalanguage). Tarski (1933) also argues that the definition ought to be formally correct and demonstrate material adequacy (accuracy). These aspects of the issue in question also raise significant debates.

Conclusion

It is relevant to highlight that Tarski’s truth theory has an ultimate significance for the scope of identification and proper explication of the truth phenomenon. Three purposes of the theory provide the insight into the analysed notion as well as constructive approach to the course of investigation. Hence, the theory developed and proved by Tarski contributes significantly to the domains of linguistics, philosophy, deductive methodology, and logic. Nevertheless, there are essential drawbacks in the controversies in the scope of concern which provoke debates even nowadays. Thus, further investigation is recommended.