In this blog post, we will examine the essence of philosophy through how philosophers from Plato to Adorno have understood and explored truth.

Why philosophy still? What is truth?

The question of truth is a fundamental question of humanity and, therefore, a fundamental question of philosophy. In a sense, the very reason for the existence of philosophy lies in the question of truth. The purpose of this class is to discuss how traditional philosophy has sought to clarify what truth is, but first, a discussion of why humans seek truth will help us understand the problem of truth. There may be many reasons why humans seek truth, but the first is that humans are finite beings, and the second is that humans are mortal beings. The fact that humans are finite means that humans are not perfect beings in themselves and therefore cannot fully possess truth itself. As Aristotle said, humans may engage in conscious activity in order to know perfect truth. Furthermore, because humans are mortal beings, anxiety about death gives rise to contempt for change and a longing for eternity. What exactly is eternal? This question has been asked repeatedly since humans began to live conscious lives, both in the East and the West.

Plato’s view of truth

The first philosopher in Western philosophy to present a systematic answer to the question of truth was Plato (470 BC). Plato believed that truth cannot change or be relative. This is because truth cannot be interpreted differently depending on the era or situation, or by different people. Truth must be accepted as truth by everyone, regardless of the era or conditions, and therefore, truth must be universal. He believed that such universal truth cannot belong to the changing sensory world, but must transcend it. In conclusion, for Plato, truth is form (idea). Form is a true objective reality and an eternal existence, the essential archetype of things that is grasped by the mind rather than the senses. A beautiful person is an imitation of universal beauty (form). Forms exist separately from objects in the mind of the One (God), and the relationship between objects and forms is explained as forms being the essential cause of objects, and objects being imitations or participants (teilhaben) of a single form. Plato believed that there was a hierarchical structure among forms. For example, there is a form of roses in general as the higher form of individual roses, and there is a form of universal flowers as the higher form of roses in general. According to Plato’s logic, forms cannot be perceived through the senses, and the perception of sensory objects is not true knowledge but only knowledge of illusions. The human condition for recognizing forms is justified through reason in the soul, and Plato argued for the theory of the soul’s pre-existence. The core of the theory of pre-existence is the pre-existence of the soul, which states that the ability to recognize forms lies in the soul, and that the soul exists in the mind before entering the body, and therefore knew forms. However, when the soul enters the body, it forgets the forms and believes that sensory perceptions are the truth, becoming captivated by the senses. Therefore, the core of Plato’s epistemology is to recall the forms that were forgotten when entering the body, and the purpose of education is to recall these forms.

Aristotle’s Criticism and Development

Aristotle (384 BC), a disciple of Plato who laid the foundation for the logic-centered direction of Western philosophy, criticized his teacher’s theory of forms and developed his own philosophy. The core of Aristotle’s criticism is, first, that eternally static forms cannot explain moving objects. Second, because forms are immaterial, they cannot explain material, sensory objects. Third, according to Plato’s explanation, objects share forms, but this presupposes a relationship between objects and forms, and Aristotle saw it as a contradiction that objects and forms, which are completely different, could be related. Through this criticism, Aristotle explained substance as a combination of form and matter, overcoming this contradiction and developing his own epistemology. Aristotle was a genius who first discovered that humans perceive the world through language. His logic played an important role in determining the direction of argument-centered Western thought. Unlike Plato, who understood the abstract nature of forms but reduced cognition to a reflection or imitation of forms by turning them into ideas, Aristotle used logic as a tool for understanding the world. He believed that concepts are common properties of entities and that entities can be defined through these concepts. Furthermore, he believed that deductive reasoning is made possible by concepts, but his epistemology was limited in that there was no way to guarantee that the premises of deductive reasoning are always true. This led him to move on to metaphysics. Ultimately, he believed that truth is related to intellectual intuition and transcends language.

Differences from modern empiricism

Post-modern British empiricists failed to understand that cognition is mediated by language, thereby retreating from Aristotle’s theory of cognition. They viewed experience as the source of cognition and believed that experience is given as simple ideas through the senses. Their understanding was a step backward in the understanding of human cognition in several respects. First, they overlooked the fact that cognition is mediated by language. Second, they were authoritarian in implying that ideas cannot, in principle, be distorted by experience. Third, ideas about things that actually exist objectively came to replace the things themselves. Later, Kant replaced the individual diversity of objects with representations of them. In this sense, experience was converted into sensory perception by empiricists, and human experience was reduced to the passive reception of the senses.
Locke separated the properties belonging to substance into primary and secondary qualities, defining primary qualities as those belonging to objects themselves and secondary qualities as the power of the mind to produce ideas that do not correspond to objects. As a result, the naive belief that all properties belong purely to substance was replaced by Hume’s view that impressions are merely internal subjective states.

Kant and the limits of cognition

Like Aristotle, Kant understood cognition as a structure of judgment. Kant replaced ideas with concepts, but inserted representations based on imagination in order to combine emotion and reason. Kant argued that concepts cannot be directly applied to objects themselves as categories of judgment, and that universal cognition is achieved through the a priori forms of the subject. Kant justified universal cognition by limiting human cognition to phenomena. However, he acknowledged the limitations of cognition as insufficient and incomplete, unable to perceive things in themselves.

Hegel’s Absolute Epistemology

Unsatisfied with Kant’s limits of cognition, Hegel sought to overcome the incompleteness of cognition by denying the complete separation of the cognizable and the unknowable. Hegel argued that if concepts are generated, then cognition of the phenomena of the empirical world can also be complete cognition. Hegel transformed the world of experience into something mental and logical through absolute spirit, thereby absolutizing the concepts formed through world experience, and argued that cognition through these absolute concepts is also absolute and complete cognition.

Interactivity and mutual subjectivity of subject and object

Adorno and Habermas criticize the logic of consciousness philosophy, which justifies universal cognition through the complete separation of subject and object. Adorno believed that the logic of identity in consciousness philosophy implies exclusivity and violence, and argued that this logic of identity does not remain merely in the realm of epistemology but also governs real social relations. While agreeing with Adorno’s analysis, Habermas argues that we must shift to a communication paradigm based on intersubjectivity in order to overcome the logic of identity in consciousness philosophy. Criticizing the logic of identity between subject and object, Habermas argues that non-exclusive rationality operates between subjects in the act of mutual subjective communication. On the other hand, Adorno emphasizes the mutuality of subject and object and paradoxically asserts mutual subjectivity.

The primacy of language use and the incompleteness of cognition

Adorno criticizes that when language use is limited to epistemology, it inevitably leads to reductionism. He argues that proving the incompleteness of identity recognition through language creates room for new experiences. On the other hand, Habermas argues for a shift from epistemology-centered language use to pragmatic language use, and puts forward validity claims to justify the universality of truth. However, Habermas’s theory of communication is based on classificatory rationality, which excludes non-identical and non-conceptual things that cannot be classified as concepts by setting the standard of truth as consensus through dialogue.

The dual nature of language and the dialectical nature of philosophy

Unlike Habermas, Adorno emphasizes the dual nature of language and argues that perception is inevitably incomplete because language is formed through experience. Philosophy constantly encounters aporia through this incompleteness of perception, and this aporia dialectically compels philosophy. Therefore, philosophy seeks to express what cannot be defined by language, which transcends the limits of argumentative thinking. Philosophy pursues the experience of true truth in this paradoxical situation, and dialectical thinking becomes inevitable in the process.