I’ve been trying to write this essay for over a week now, but every time I think I’ve figured out how to put my thoughts into words, I read over my draft, and it makes no sense. I’m a recovering perfectionist, so — in the spirit of actually practicing what I talk about in therapy — I’ve decided to publish this essay while knowing that it doesn’t precisely capture what I want to say. Better done than perfect, right?

Last week, I was having a chat about religion with my friend Keith when the topic of truth came up. We were talking about metaphysical belief without evidence, and he — ever the pragmatist — said that most people need a break and an escape from material reality from time to time. Of course, being an idealist, I responded that because I value truth a lot, I think that something that brings comfort at the expense of what we have evidence for is ultimately doing a disservice. He retorted with a question that I’d been avoiding writing about for months: what is truth? And thus, this essay was born.

First, I’m eternally grateful to have friends who indulge my daily thought experiments and monthly existential crises. I truly think I would’ve gone mad years ago without them. Second, apparently the question of truth is a millennia-old philosophical debate that I accidentally waded into on a random Wednesday in July. Second, I didn’t realize that my offhand question would land me in the middle of a millennia-long debate.

After perusing the Stanford Dictionary of Philosophy’s entry on “Truth,” I realized that my idea of truth aligns with the correspondence theory. That is, I tend to think that “a belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.” In this case, a fact is a proposition that corresponds with physical reality. This contrasts with the other two most popular theories of truth: the correspondence theory (a belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs) and the pragmatic theory (truth is a function of the practices people engage in). There are many more theories of truth that I won’t list here, but I definitely recommend checking out the dictionary entry here.

Remember when the news was about what happened, not how to feel about it? 1440's Daily Digest is bringing that back. Every morning, they sift through 100+ sources to deliver a concise, unbiased briefing — no pundits, no paywalls, no politics. Just the facts, all in five minutes. For free.

Read the newsletter trusted by 4.5 million fact-seekers.

Complicated enough for you? As I struggled to write this essay, I wondered why I even cared about the definition of truth. It’s hard to build trust and agree on shared goals when we all have different definitions of truth. It’s also nearly impossible to make a case for an idea or strategy when we can’t agree on what types of evidence count for or against our truth claims. There’s also the fact that, regardless of your political affiliation, I think you can agree that government regimes and technologies like generative AI are making it harder and harder to separate facts from lies. So, what is truth?

My instinct is to go with the correspondence theory — that beliefs have to align with facts. But what counts as a fact? Is it only things that can be objectively measured and observed? If a religious person claims they had a spiritual experience, is that a fact? After all, they really did feel something. What about facts that we don’t have the technology to determine yet? Would making claims using them be considered untrue simply because we don’t have the tools to confirm the facts?

For all of you non-ADHDers reading this, that last paragraph is a glimpse into how my mind works: all. the. time. I’m talking nonstop. That’s why I’m always napping: to get a break from the pondering. But I digress.

So, what is truth? I’ve come to the unsatisfactory conclusion that it depends. I think, as a general rule, it’s good to use the correspondence theory as the primary benchmark for evaluating truth claims. But in special circumstances, we might have to expand our definitions of “truth” and “facts” to reach a pragmatic solution. Ew.

I’m curious — how do you define truth? Feel free to comment if you’re reading on the web or reply to this email if you’re receiving it as a newsletter.

Yours in truth,
Mina

P.S. I’ve never been interested in the formal study of philosophy because of its stereotype of being the domain of pretentious white men. However, the YouTube algorithm got to me, and I’ve been revisiting my stance. Much to my surprise, I’ve found that many of the questions and thought experiments that have occupied my mind for decades are common philosophical questions. Aside from dipping my toe into the readings themselves, I’ve also found myself binge-watching my new favorite philosophy channel: Unsolicited Advice by Joe Folley.

P.P.S. I know this one is late, but I had a really tough time articulating my thoughts this week! Thanks for your patience, and thanks for reading. I really appreciate you.