User:GCooper316/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/2020-21/Seminar group 10/Truth

Truth in Music

Music, as we know it

Generally, music is considered to be the structured combination of selected tones that result in a composition that possesses unity and coherence. However, music in itself is an elaborate discipline - the term “music” is ambiguous as there are many genres of music, ranging from classical music, rock, pop music, etcetera. You could further categorise music into those purely, semi, or not at all instrumental, whereby instrumental music has no explicit semantics involved. With such complexities in mind, it is not inapt to say that the various forms of music, in itself, have their methods of truth and knowledge.

Expression of truth in music

The composer has free will in constructing their song or piece, which implies they can project their intentions in their work, seeking to propagate their truths. This freedom also means that the conveyed truth in music can be of any kind, be it a personal truth or truths about society. Yet, music is an art that does not often represent but express instead. Music is more concerned with expressing truth rather than mirroring it, which is understandable as it is a non-positivist discipline.

There are several theories of expression of truth in music, all of which take on a generally subjective and phenomenological stance.

Arousal theory

Arousal theory states that music is only expressive of an emotion if it incites the emotion within the listener. Music can be considered expressive through its' properties, for example, dynamics. Some Arousalists also distinguish emotions from feelings - emotions are cognitive; feelings are more like "phenomenological objectless sensations based on physiological changes in us". This distinction would mean music arouses feelings rather than emotions, almost as if it were a fitting response to the truth. If excitement is a suitable response to joy, when the music arouses a sense of excitement within the listener, we could consider the music to express joy. Anyhow, the core of the theory remains the same, but some philosophers disagree. The theory assumes that all listeners will always feel a certain way so long they perceive the same piece of music, but it would be ignorant to dismiss that different listeners would have different responses due to their varying knowledge of music and their personal experiences. Realistically, the authored truth in music is as subjective as the listener's perception of it.

Additionally, one could argue the arousal theory for music is a constructionist view of music. After all, constructivism can be defined as how truth is not a mirror of reality but something created, either communally or within the individual. Applying this to arousal theory, one can argue it is a constructionist approach to music - the "truth" is constructed as a result of what is perceived by the listener.

Cognitivist theory

Another theory would be the cognitivist theory. It opposes the arousal theory in the sense that music expresses emotions, via its' characteristics, that is reminiscent of human expression of emotions, rather than having the capacity to arouse an emotion. Peter Kivy, a philosopher of music, claims that the emotions felt by the listener are not a consequence of the aesthetic properties of music, but connections to events in a listener's life. Kivy also argues that the aesthetic properties of music relate to human emotions - gloomy, broody sounding music can remind us of something melancholic. However, sometimes music can resemble phenomena instead of human emotion. For instance, Vivaldi's infamous Four Seasons is widely agreed to be reminiscent of, well, the four seasons.

Music, as the unique truth

For both theories, it is evident that the composer's truth could differ from what the listener perceives. Composers generally intend truth in a phenomenological and subjective way, constructing their music as such; listeners extract truth in the same way, as a response/result of the music. Truth in music is unique. There is an awareness that the emanated truth could differ from what is understood, and perhaps this is the sincere intention of many composers.

It is worth noting that the arguments posed relate more strongly to instrumental music, whereby music accompanied by lyrics could have a different epistemology. Music can have a constructivist approach too in the sense that trends and issues arising in society can have a strong influence on what kind of music is written, content-wise and genre-wise. In a study investigating the top-40 songs in the U.S from 1960 to 2010, it was found that the majority of pop music was written about romantic/sexual relationships.

Truth in Communication

Introduction to Communication

Communication is essentially the giving or exchange of information through appropriate media. Communication studies is a field of social sciences that deals with processes and pattern in communication and social interactions. The preconceptions associated with the relationship between social sciences and truth would suggest that truth in a discipline like communication is constructed, relative and subjective.

Truth in Communication

Constructivism takes into consideration people’s individual interpretations of the social realm which then influences their communicative behavior. If one accepts that communication is constructed, one could explain why some can communicate their need more skillfully and thus effectively than others. To illustrate the described phenomea, take the example of two employees requesting a day off from their boss. Person A says "I would like to take this Friday off. I am aware it is our busiest day, but have been working hard and I think Max could take over as he doesn't do much anyway, plus I really do deserve a break" Guess what, the boss doesn't grant him the desired break. Person B now walks into the office and goes "I would like to take this Friday off, but I am aware it is our busiest day so I have already talked to Max and he said he would be happy to jump in for me. In case Friday doesn't work, I can take Wednesday off, whichever is less inconvenient" The boss granted him Friday off. Both Person A and Person B spoke the truth that they had constructed based on their individual experiences and understanding of the social conditions, however they led to different outcomes. We could argue that Person B constructed a more compelling truth, which does not mean that Person A was lying. Person B simply asked himself the question "How do I deliver my request so that it will be seen as the truth and my boss gives me the day off?" This model shows that truth was therefore constructed to cater one's experience (in this scenario that of the boss) of "the social realm".

The Relationship between Truth and Power in Communication

There is an inherent assumption in all societies that people tell the truth when they communicate. As we communicate with another person, we tend to focus on the overall content, instead of fact-checking every piece of information they tell us. We assume, that they are telling the truth or at least what they believe to be the truth, and aim to communicate a piece of information accurately. The assumption of truth-telling also puts the person communicating a piece of information in a position of power. As Professor Mark Haugaard argues, "agents use truth to create local social capital for themselves". Believing that the information we are confronted with to be true or something we should accept to be truth regardless of whether we actually believe in it. This characteristic of truth-telling in communication however can be easily abused when someone intentionally portrays a lie as a truth, such as in the case of fake news and click-baits.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the above examples have shown how truth can be constructed through the use of communication to achieve one's goals. This characteristic can then be used to assert dominance over one's communication partner. In the field and descipline of communication one can thus establish that truth does not necessarily need to mirror reality, and in certain situation it is more benefitial to construct, or adjust the truth in order to communicate successfully.

Truth in Logic and its Issues

Introduction to Logic

Logic is a discipline in the formal sciences such as mathematics and computer science. It’s a science that is concerned about the way to establish a reasoning, in other words, the steps to follow in order to reach a conclusion, and it’s aim is to evaluate arguments. In order to do this, it takes into account the relationship between the premises (list of statements that support the conclusion) and the conclusion of an argument. This link is called interference. This interference will be tested with a deductive reasoning. If the conclusion can be obtained deductively from the premises (follows logically) then the argument will be considered valid, otherwise it will be invalid. By following this process, we minimize inconsistencies and come to more rational conclusions.

Science of Truth?

A normative science

The German philosopher and logician Gottlob Frege wrote in one of his books that logic allows us to answer the following question: “How must I think in order to reach the goal, truth?”. Thus, the search for the truth is one of the goals of this discipline. It achieves truth by advocating the correct way of reasoning. This is precisely its role as a normative science, unlike most sciences, which as we have seen in the lectures, often use a positivist or empirical approach. By definition, a normative discipline is concerned with "what ought to be" by establishing norms that need to be respected, in the case of logic the preferred way of reasoning.

Logical reasoning and truth

The rigor of deductive interference enables us to have formal proofs that an argument is valid because we can verify them by taking up the reasoning. Moreover, if we assume that the premises are true and the argument is valid, then the conclusion will also be true. Thus, we come to conclusions that are both true and verifiable. These qualities make logic a good tool for finding the truth. This reasoning is used in other scientific disciplines such as computer science and mathematics. Mathematics and logic occupy a very important place in science because, like a universal language, they unite the sciences. This shows use that other disciplines rely on the knowledge from the discipline of logic, thus have confidence in their truth.

Criticism

This way of testing the truth has not remained without judgment, it is contested by some philosophers. One of the main criticisms that logical reasoning receives, put forward by Quine, is that it is analytical and not empirical, with experience, it is based on information we already know and we only seeks links between all of them to put them in the context of the argument we want to test. These pieces of information with which we start our reasoning are presupposed to be true, so are the relations that we establish between them, so what about the truths we get from it? In his Principles of Mathematics, Russel says that the truths coming from logical constants only are a priori truths. Aristotle came to the same conclusion while he is at the origin of formal logic. But he goes further by saying that absolute truth cannot exist. So an approximate truth is not a bad thing because there are still truths. Another problem with this technique is that it does not always give us the truth. James Harvey Robinson illustrates this with his quote: “Most of our so-called reasoning consists in finding arguments for going on believing as we already do.” This means that logic does not always come to the truth because it is based on our norms and knowledge and any theories which do not meet these norms are automatically considered false when they may be true. The theory of a round earth is a good example of truth that have been considered untrue because of the logic of the time.

Conclusion

Thus, logic allows us to obtain rational and verifiable conclusions that we can consider to be true, in particular, because it starts from prepositions that we already approve of, and the process of logical thinking allows us to preserve this truth from inconsistencies: the way in which the elements of the argument succeed one another is conceivable so that we, as humans having values and beliefs, can accept them. It comes down to what we saw in the lectures: truth is subjective, it is us who decides whether something is true or not. However, the use of logic should not be excluded as it can allow us to evaluate truths. It can be used to strengthen and test new scientific theories developed by experimental science. Furthermore, its use is very important for the functioning of other disciplines, as it is the “cement that holds the scientific structure together”. It remains a powerful tool but is not the most obvious one to use if we want to find “new” truths.

Truth in Happiness

Introduction to Happiness

Throughout history, philosophers have characterized “happiness” into two streams, which are equivalent to a different sense of the term:

1. A life that thrives for the person who leads it

2. A mindset

In the first term, it's inclined to the philosophical approach. “Happiness” in this sense is fundamentally focused on what is beneficial to an individual, namely what is good for her, which will serve her interests, and what is desirable for her sake. Being “good for” someone is not the same as simply being good. Perhaps it is always good for you to be honest yet it may not always be good for you, as when it entails self-sacrifice. Thus, in this sense of the term, it can be said that happiness refers to a life of well-being or flourishing: a life that goes well for you.

On the other hand, the second term gets along with a psychological approach. Enquiry about happiness in this sense is fundamentally the study of certain mindsets like positive feeling and satisfaction, just like the enquiry about pleasure or depression utilized in psychological approach.

Approaches to the truth in Happiness

Constructivism in Happiness

The first term can be seen as a constructivist sense. Constructivism takes learning into account as an active process and understanding attained by a series of personal experiences and values. Aristotle’s approach to happiness can be a typical example of constructivism. Aristotle's propositions can be summarised into six general points:

1. Happiness is the ultimate goal, which is self-evidence as well as the purpose of human existence.

2. Happiness is a series of practising virtues; it is not mere pleasure, nor virtue.

3. It is impossible to attain happiness during our lifetime, which means that it is the end of our lives.

4. The practice of logical thinking determines human happiness due to the nature of their rationality.

5. Happiness depends on an individual’s acquisition of moral behaviour. These involve making a mean between an excess and a deficiency.

6. Happiness involves intellectual reflection, which is the realization of our rational capacities.

From a constructivist perspective, in order to achieve happiness, one has to actively pursue it based on the virtues and a situation. When faced with a challenging circumstance, one should make a tremendous effort on it although it requires some sacrifice. It is making a choice for the greater good despite the consequences.

Positivism in Happiness

On the other hand, the positivist approach to happiness is consistent with the second term. Positivism refers to the knowledge that can be experienced with the senses or proved by logic. It was Bentham who first thought of happiness as a form of positivism. Unlike Aristotle and other philosophers who emphasized its distinctiveness, Bentham asserted that it consists of pleasure and the absence of pain. He made a major contribution to the 'science of happiness'. Using a scientific approach, Bentham tried to measure happiness in two ways. First, he suggested that using the human pulse rate might allow happiness to be quantified, considering it a mix of pleasurable sensations. Another approach is measuring happiness by the amount of money. For example, two different items with the identical price might produce the same amount of pleasure to the consumer. Bentham was more inclined to the latter measure.

Integrated Psychology with Economics through a Positivist Approach

By relating money closely to the personal state of mind, positivists like Bentham laid down the groundwork for binding psychological research to capitalism that would mold the business practices of the twentieth century. In other words, positivism in happiness enabled economic problems to be redefined and treated as psychological conditions, which allowed the belief that inner states of satisfaction and dissatisfaction can be objectively quantified, which can be beneficial to management research and marketing plans.

Conclusion

Happiness is the ultimate goal since it is self-evident. If someone asks why happiness matters, there are no further external reasons. It just simply does matter. For this reason, many philosophers and psychologists consistently seek the meaning of happiness and the truth of happiness based on two approaches: Constructivism and Positivism.

Truth in Gender

Introduction

Gender refers to the cultural and social differences between the two sexes in society. Within this framework, while the majority of people fit into their assigned gender at birth, which is referred to being cisgender, others do not. The use of gender in situations outside pure grammar was first popularised by feminists, who wanted to separate the social differences from biological ones.

Approaches to truth in Gender

Positivism in Gender

Conventionally, studies of gender have largely employed a positivist approach. Positivism puts forth that knowledge is generated through a scientific method, hence mirroring and representing reality. Statistics which capitalise on the differences between men and women are used, with examples such as the gender pay gap, life expectancy and more.

Positivist studies towards gender often utilise the scientific method to analyse the ways in which men and women are different, and the factors driving them. For an example of this in practice, one study measured the gender differences between males and females regarding depressed moods during adolescence. Structural equation modelling and analysis of regression were used as quantitative methods to interpret numeric data. The study ultimately concluded that girls appeared to be more vulnerable to depressed moods during adolescence, as a result of increased obstacles during development such as discontentment with body weight. From this one can see how positivist knowledge regarding gender is generated through quantitative methods.

Constructivism in Gender

In contrast to positivism which states how our truth is a reflection of reality, constructivism argues that we in fact create reality itself. Within this framework, individuals’ experiences are not a mirror of reality but simply an organised and created version of it. This approach to truth bares two key differences from positivism: that reality is fixed, and it is possible to separate personal values from facts.

These differences are clearly reflected in gender studies: constructivism sees gender as something that cannot be determined but only represented. This is largely because while positivist approaches to studying gender often assume gender as strictly binary, hence capitalising on their differences, constructivism is different. Rather, constructivists examine gender as something that is a created representation. Hence, constructivist approaches to gender often handle questions such as what even makes up a difference between the two genders. For an example of a constructivist approach to gender, one can look to the book “Undoing Gender” by professor Judith Butler. The book analyses how gender often manifests unconsciously not as a result of one’s identity but rather societal norms. This is done through analysis of how those who are transgender and or intersex are treated in the law, as well as focusing on specific cases. Additionally, further analysis is conducted in regards to how these norms can be inhibiting to one’s wellbeing.

Overall, from the above one can see the differences between the constructivist and positivist approaches to truth in the study of gender.

Impilcations for gender studies

Gender studies refers to an academic descipline which is concerned with conducting analysis on gender representation and identity. The approaches to truth in gender that were mentioned previously hold large implications for gender studies, as it reflects upon how the direction of academic research conducted in the field can possibly either fuel or alleviate gender roles. If most research towards genders capitalize on the differences between men and women, it may fuel the notion that they are widely different, resulting in different treatment. This is not to say differences should not be acknowledged and researched, but rather also accompanied with research breaking down what shapes our constructionist views of gender in the first place.

Constructivist gender roles in the Legal System

On the topic of law, the landscape of gender studies is also greatly influenced by existing social policies and their changes. Interestingly, policies themselves are also a product of constructivism, but the implementation of gender-related policies can further perpetuate and reflect existing gender norms. Maternity leave policies illustrate this well - whereby such policies are produced via societal assumptions about gender. The notion that women, due to their biological ability to bear children, should be caregivers and that men, due to their physical strength owing to anatomical differences, should be breadwinners of the family, are constructivist truths that are the cause and goal of certain maternity leave policies. The United States is the only OECD country that does not offer paid maternity leave on a national basis, reasons for this potentially being the aforementioned stereotypes. Constructivist policies like these are the center of many gender studies, where the effects of such policies on representations of gender are investigated, progressing as society’s truth of gender changes.

Truth in International Relations

The discipline of International relations is the study of the interactions of multiple states and global organizations on an international stage in the context of political, economic, and cultural relationships. Its study is interdisciplinary in its scope as it draws upon other disciplines such as history, economics, politics, and even psychology. In the multitude of theories present in IR, one could generally group them into two epistemological approaches; positivist and post-positivist.

Approaches to Truth in International Relations

In positivist theories, such as the variants of liberalism and realism, the pursuit of truth provides a distinction between the knowing subject and the object known by the subject enabling a clear dichotomy between facts and values, and theory and practice. Using methods reminiscent of those utilized in the natural sciences, the approaches draw upon objective evidence from the material world such as power in order to produce their knowledge. According to Waltz, these observations “led to the emphasis on the ‘facts’ of a world of states’ and lead to a lesser emphasis on political and normative implications. Consequently, these empirical-lead pursuits may lead to a lack of consideration for normative-based questions such as what should be considered as a desirable form of practice in IR or the nature of change within the discipline.

Post-positivist theories however argue that there cannot be a scientific approach as the social world is inherently subjective; deriving a scientific method in dealing with International Affairs is essentially impossible. Theories such as Constructivism, Post-Modernism, or Feminism all question the foundations that the orthodox theories of Liberalism and Realism are constructed from. They understand that the pursuit of an ‘objective’ truth is impossible and suggested a greater emphasis on normative approaches. Rather than perceiving ideas as a separate mirror of the world, post-positivist scholars argue that we as individuals are actually part of it. The emergence of post-positivist theories, according to Fluck, “introduced a new way of looking at truth and knowledge as political matters, constitutive of international realities”.

Conclusion

As demonstrated above, the two viewpoints differ in terms of how their truths are created and what is used to create this knowledge; there is no doubt that these epistemological approaches have come into conflict with each other. One particular debate, arguably the most serious out of all, was the ‘Fourth Great Debate’ that emerged in the late 1980s and has continued to spur discourse to the present day. Recently, the concept of ‘post-truth’, whose ideas are reminiscent of post-positivist epistemologies, have emerged in the political sphere. With the “blatant dishonesty and cynicism” affiliated with the exit of Great Britain from the EU in 2016, it seems evident that truth doesn’t play a significant role in politics further delineating how the role and influence of objective truth, a central tenet in the study of positivism in international relations, have shifted in favour of emotions and personal beliefs giving way to what Lockie argues as complacency for governments and politicians to blatantly deploy “ propaganda, vilification and intimidation”.

Truth In Visual Arts

Introduction To Visual Art

Visual art is an object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation.

Approaches To Truth In Visual Arts

Art has the power to evoke emotions, new thoughts, conflicts which we experience in real life, bring up questions of morality.. Every person perceives art from their own perspective, with their own background, their own emotions and their social standards. 'In the pursuit of his art the artist becomes completely impersonalized. As an individual, he has his own disposition, desires, sentiments, etc. At a particular moment, he is moved by an impulse; in the next, in his attempt to create, he frees himself from that; then he does not have any desire or attachment with regard to the subject, and the keenness of his individual perception takes on a new, impersonal character'. . From the appearance of art there has always been debates whether art objects handle the truth of their artist or do they have their own eternal truth. This is where two opposite opinions of Plato and Aristotle appeared.

Plato's vision on Art

Plato thought that art was nothing else than an imitation of life which created more lies and is very far removed from the true representation.. He was sure that the "real truth" lies not in physical representation but in its eternal and invisible form. The truth in Plato's vision is something unreachable, that even an artist wouldn't fully know the real truth behind his piece of art. .

Aristotle's vision on Art

Unlike Plato, Aristotle believed that there is a difference between subjects' eternal truth which they contain in themselves and their universal truth. Although artistic depictions may be based on an “outward appearance”, they have to create a bridge between "outward appearence" and “inward” experience of the physical world to therefore connect artist and the perceivers of art. He points out that an artist has to his own point of view on the "truth" and it is his responsibility to project it in his art. He believed that in terms of art it is more important to imitate objects more artistically than scientifically in order to create an aesthetic image 'with detailed fidelity to the "outer world."' .