Truth (Of Experience and Of Correspondence)

During the previous class we had discussed the two theories of truth, through experience (constructivism) and correspondence. truth of Correspondence basically states that if the statement corresponds the way the world is, it is true, but if it does not then it is false. On the other hand, truth of experience states as long as the individual experiences something like a rock it is true and if it is not experienced then it is false. For example does a rock only exist if we experience it or does it exist based upon if it corresponds with the world, being present. Personally an item such as a rock does exist through both theories because the rock may not be in existence to a person who had not experienced what a rock even is. But on the other hand, there are millions of rocks that exist throughout the world in which do correspond the way the world really is. Sometimes these terms are confusing but I would like to analyze each in detail.

Such is in the case of experience or from a constructivist perspective objects and events have to be experienced to be true. An example would be that do mountains exist if we do not even perceive or experience them. German philosopher and psychologist Ernst Von Glaserfeld would probably state that you do need to experience a mountain to believe that it is true. Lets say that if a constructivist lived in an urban environment like Boston,Ma, mountains would not exist if one was to remain in the city their whole life. However skyscrapers, big businesses, forty floor apartments and condominiums would exist but not mountains. Theoretically mountains do exist in general and can be viewed pictorially or on a map but how can you convince a constructivist that a mountain actually exists. You could not state or proclaim that there is such thing as a mountain because they would deny of such thing would exist. A constructivist would have to experience a mountain via climbing, sightseeing, or being one with the mountain (meditation). This theory does make sense but to the normal person you could state that the constructivist has no common sense and a lack of geography. How could someone become dumbfounded to the point that they deny the existence of mountains, even though they are present. An example that was given in class about a couple weeks ago was that constructivists would deny that their hands exist and that hands are a figment of our imagination that only our brain tells us mentally. This is a ridiculous statement because our hands do exist anatomically and we do experience our hands on a daily basis. If our hands were to be separated from our body, then we would feel uttermost pain and suffering which would imply that our hands do exist.

Truth of correspondence states that if something corresponds with the way the world is it is true and vice versa, then it would be false. Now let us analyze the theory in relation to mountains again. Mountains do exist on a correspondence theory basis because mountains do exist with the way the world is. They are prevalent over the entire world ranging from the United States to China. There are pictures and even physical notations on maps and it does correspond the way the world is. If we said there were no such things as mountains, then the theory would be false. However do mountains correspond to the way the world is or do they not? If they did not, what are some examples?