Hegel, Coherence theory, and Marx.

[Nevuk]

So today I learned about the coherence theory of truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

Apparently Hegel's dialectic is one of the schools of epistemology to follow this theory of truth. Upon learning this, I realized the implications for Marxism due to being heavily reliant on dialectical models. Uhh. I haven't slept in about 25 hours so this is a bit confused. I mostly just wanted to open up a discussion on a very specific philosophical issue which branched outside of the philosophy thread into the marxism thread but didn't really belong in either.

Essentially I believe that this is the largest weakness of marxism as a philosophy as coherence theory seems a very poor form for creating an ideal of justice under which a society could operate.



I talked a bit to my roommate about it and he said that mostly different fields of marxism utilized whichever theory of truth is most usable to them.

[GeeBee]

Keep it in the philosophy thread, nerd.

[Nevuk]

Keep it in the philosophy thread, nerd.
Wiimp

[Colinmac36]

Keep it in the philosophy thread, nerd.
haha!

[kemppettyjohn]

i would LOVE to discuss this. but i honestly dont understand it. read the wikipedia article and way over my head

[kemppettyjohn]

if you could explain coherence theory in simplest terms possible.. maybe i could say something intellectual

[jawstheme]

So today I learned about the coherence theory of truth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coherence_theory_of_truth

Apparently Hegel's dialectic is one of the schools of epistemology to follow this theory of truth. Upon learning this, I realized the implications for Marxism due to being heavily reliant on dialectical models. Uhh. I haven't slept in about 25 hours so this is a bit confused. I mostly just wanted to open up a discussion on a very specific philosophical issue which branched outside of the philosophy thread into the marxism thread but didn't really belong in either.

Essentially I believe that this is the largest weakness of marxism as a philosophy as coherence theory seems a very poor form for creating an ideal of justice under which a society could operate.



I talked a bit to my roommate about it and he said that mostly different fields of marxism utilized whichever theory of truth is most usable to them.

I don't see why. In ideal marxism there is no poverty, which takes away many reasons for committing crimes, and makes justice more clear. Not sure if I'm following this whole coherence theory though, I don't have time to read much on it right now.

[Scrandon]

Fuckin' Hegel...

[Nevuk]

if you could explain coherence theory in simplest terms possible.. maybe i could say something intellectual
It's a pretty trippy philosophy. Here's the stanford article on it, it's somewhat better : http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ . This quote sums it up very well :
A coherence theory of truth states that the truth of any (true) proposition consists in its coherence with some specified set of propositions. The coherence theory differs from its principal competitor, the correspondence theory of truth, in two essential respects. The competing theories give conflicting accounts of the relation between propositions and their truth conditions. (In this article, ‘proposition’ is not used in any technical sense. It simply refers to the bearers of truth values, whatever they may be.) According to one, the relation is coherence, according to the other, it is correspondence. The two theories also give conflicting accounts of truth conditions. According to the coherence theory, the truth conditions of propositions consist in other propositions. The correspondence theory, in contrast, states that the truth conditions of propositions are not (in general) propositions, but rather objective features of the world. (Even the correspondence theorist holds that propositions about propositions have propositions as their truth conditions.)

The correspondence theory of truth is the idea that there is an objective group of facts in existence, and there are sets of possible propositions which can express any fact. This is the most popular, "normal" notion of truth.

Pragmatic theory of truth basically states that if you want something to be true it is (or that the most "useful" truths are the most "real" truths).

It's a very complex

Edit:
A bit of an example to make it clearer.

2+2=4 is a fact (w/e, this will be imprecise terminology). It is a true fact. The writing, the saying, the symbols in 2+2=4 are the proposition part of it, while the meaning of it is the fact. The different theories of truth have different reasons why it is a true statement. For correspondence theory it is true because it is true - it is one of the facts present in reality and the proposition is true because it corresponds to a true fact. For coherence theory it is true because it coheres with the system of mathematics. For pragmatism it is true because it is useful for math to function in the way it does.

[Love As Arson]

2+2=4 is a fact (w/e, this will be imprecise terminology). It is a true fact. The writing, the saying, the symbols in 2+2=4 are the proposition part of it, while the meaning of it is the fact. The different theories of truth have different reasons why it is a true statement. For correspondence theory it is true because it is true - it is one of the facts present in reality and the proposition is true because it corresponds to a true fact. For coherence theory it is true because it coheres with the system of mathematics. For pragmatism it is true because it is useful for math to function in the way it does.
Given the choice between the two, the latter seems closer to the truth, insofar as there are no "facts" to back up mathematics, but within its system, it makes sense and, moreover, works well in our measurements. In any case, it is no coincidence that Marx claimed to turn Hegel's dialectic on its head; Hegel was an idealist and his system only works within a framework where history, thoughts and actions are abstracted into concepts such as "Spirit". Marx, on the other hand, formed his dialectic according the contradictions apparent in capitalism and previous organizations of society, e.g., capitalism creates the bourgeoisie, which require a working class who become invested with a power to destroy the bourgeois conception of society. This, however, isn't a static state of affairs, since Marx would acknowledge that capitalism is different now as opposed to the nineteenth century conditions he was writing about. The system exploitation remains the same, the way in which it goes on has changed; and Marxism must be adjusted accordingly. One thing I will say is, his insight pertains to capitalism and it is precisely why he was averse to make comments on specifics regarding socialism, aside from how it differs from capitalism.