


































AQUINO VOLUME3 ISSUE 3 JUNE 2023


ABSTRACT 
This work submits that the Pragmatic Theory of Truth is a viable theory of truth based on 
its emphasis on the notion of practical judgment and usefulness. Pragmatism has become 
an interesting philosophical discourse among intellectuals such as Charles Sander 
Peirce, William James, John Dewey; and F. S. C. Schiller among others pushing the thesis 
that whatever works and is useful is true. The focus of the thesis is the critical examination 
of the Pragmatic theory of truth particularly on how it has so far been able to resolve the 
questions surrounding the nature of truth. A conceptual analysis approach was adopted 
in the study, breaking down and scrutinizing ideas and beliefs, asking fundamental 
questions, and providing probable answers with the hope of determining whether indeed 
the Pragmatic Theory of Truth can be presented as a viable way of defining whatever is 
true. Pragmatists have always insisted that whatever is called truth needs to be relevant 
rather than merely independent of those creating or granting them true value. That 
conveys the greatest strength of the Pragmatic Theory of Truth specifically its ability to 
remain dynamic and fluctuating according to real-world application of new knowledge 
and information, while still allowing for a realistic criterion of lasting truth.

Keywords: Pragmatic, Theory, Truth and Reconciliation.

Introduction
Pragmatism is a philosophical tradition that considers words and thoughts as tools and 
instruments for prediction, problem–solving; and action; and rejects the idea that the 
function of thought is to describe, or mirror realities. Pragmatists contend that most 
philosophical topics, such as the nature of knowledge, language, concepts, meaning, 
belief, and science are all best viewed in terms of their practical uses and successes.

However, in this paper, we will be discussing briefly what the notion of truth is, the 
philosophical epistemological problem of truth, the different theories that have been 
propounded to answer the question of truth, discussing the view of the pragmatists. 
Explaining truth as usefulness, reconciling pragmatic and other theories of truth.

THE NOTION OF TRUTH
In general, whenever we ask what something is, there are two questions we might be 
interested in. Suppose that I ask what is gold, I might want to understand the concept 
''gold'', that is what the word 'gold' means in ordinary English. Alternatively, I might be 
seeking to know the underlying nature of the property of gold, for example, that it is an 
element with an atomic reading of 79 weight, of course, these projects need not be 

THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH: A DEFENSE AND RECONCILIATION

OGUNSINA FOLASADE  ODUNAYO.
DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSOPHY , EKITI STATE UNIVERSITY ADO EKITI.

199



completely distinct. My inquiry about gold would presumably pick out many important 
and substantive facts about gold, e.g., that gold is a malleable yellow metal for instance. 
Yet it also seems clear that I could have a good grasp of the concept of gold without 
knowing all the facts about its underlying nature.

“When philosophers ask what truth is, they are interested sometimes in the 
underlying nature of truth as its property, and sometimes both. In the case of gold, for 
example, giving an analysis of the concept [for instance, by supplying necessary and 
sufficient conditions for the application of the word] need not tell you everything about 
what the property of gold consists of. But in the case of truth, it is somewhat trickier to say 
how the theories of the concept and propositions about its properties relate. Unlike the 
case of gold, we have no independent, empirical access to the properties of truth itself 
except via that concept. Thus disputes over the properties of truth are frequently [but not 
always] fought on conceptual ground, that is over how we might best define the concept 
of truth” (Lynch, 2001,pp. 115-117).

This work is not asking about how we can know whether a belief is true or false 
rather it is asking when it is that a belief can be said to be true or false. It is to be hoped that 
a clear answer to this question may help in obtaining an answer to the question of what 
beliefs are true. In specific terms, it asks only ''what is truth'' or'' what is falsehood'' not 
''what beliefs are true'' and'' what beliefs are false''. It is very important to keep these 
different questions entirely separate since any confusion between them is sure to produce 
an answer, which may not apply to either. 

Most arguments are rendered in statements with the truth. According to D. W. 
Hamlyn,(as cited in Popper, 1972)  truth is not an observable property. You cannot know 
that a proposition that expresses a belief is true merely by observing it. This according to 
him means that truth must be a property that statements possess.

The necessity of allowing for falsehood makes it impossible to regard belief as a 
relation of the mind to a single object which could be said to be what is believed. If belief 
were so regarded, we should find that, like an acquaintance, it would not admit of the 
opposition of truth and falsehood, but would have to be always true.

Many theories have been propounded in an attempt to answer what in reality 
constitutes truth. Some of these theories include;
(A) The Correspondence Theory of Truth: The Correspondence Theory is 
traceable to the empiricist tradition in knowledge acquisition. According to empiricists, 
the basis of knowledge is a direct perception of the world. Truth in this way lies in the 
correspondence of what is asserted with what is reported. The Correspondence Theory 
presupposes the Wittgenstein picture theory of meaning as found in the Tractatus, which 
posits that language mirrors reality. 

The Correspondence Theory of Truth sometimes also referred to as the Common 
Sense view of truth has been the most popular of the truth theories. The theory is 

200

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



commonly formulated expressing that there is a correspondence between what is 
expressed and a fact.

According to the theory, a judgment is correct or a proposition is true if there is a fact 
corresponding to it, and false if there is not. The correspondence theory of truth is a theory, 
that we all subscribed to in our day-to-day activities. Here, the truth of a statement is 
assumed independent of our opinions. Rather, it consists in a relation that holds between 
statements and something outside the general content of statements. The theory then is an 
objectivist theory. Truth is categorically different from opinion. It is timeless. The 
cornerstone of the Correspondence Theory of truth can be traced to Aristotle's dictum:

To say of what is that it is not and of what is not, that it is, is
false, while to say of what is, that it is, and what is not that it is
not is true. (Aristotle 2002)

For Aristotle, what “is” is what exists and what is not is what does not exist. Apart from the 
existential import of this dictum, there is in addition a relation between saying something 
that is and stating the truth about it. The relationship between language and fact can 
therefore be established. We can deduce that correspondence attempts to relate beliefs or 
propositions and facts together. In the Aristotelian sense, facts can be said to be entities 
having objective existence outside individuals. 

CRITIQUE OF THE CORRESPONDENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The correspondence theory explicates 'true proposition' along the lines of a “true 

copy” of a tension. On the one hand, we have the original (the fact of the matter) and we 
compare this with the copy (the proposition) to check if they correspond with one another 
(Rusell, 2022). If we want to test the truth of the proposition “The book is on the table”, we 
need to go to where the table is and confirm whether the book is lying on the table. This 
can only be acceptable of course where observational confrontation is practicable. It 
cannot and would not work in so many other situations where direct observation is not 
possible. 

The interpretation of truth as the agreement of thought with reality when critically 
appraised perhaps also looks a bit absurd. For example, in relating thought to reality, how 
seriously can thought be a likeness of something that in itself is partial? How can  thought,  
an intangible element resembles a cube? Yet another popular criticism against the 
Correspondence Theory relates to how it is possible to identify the items which are 
supposed to correspond particularly where there is falsehood and to say what the 
correspondence or non-correspondence consists (Mackie, 1978). In other words, what is 
the relationship between a proposition and a fact? 

 (B) THE COHERENCE THEORY OF TRUTH
The Coherence Theory of Truth can be traced to the rationalist tradition in the 

acquisition of knowledge. Rationalists believe that reason as opposed to the use of the 
senses plays a dominant role in our attempt to gain knowledge. The Coherence Theory 
states that a statement is true if it coheres with other statements and beliefs. It measures 

201

ODUNAYO The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth: A Defense And Reconciliation     



coherence and constituency among statements within a system. Its proponent is Brand 
Blanshard.

According to Blanshard, (as cited in Woozley, 1985)  in a coherent system, no 
proposition is arbitrary. Rather every proposition is entailed by other jointly and even 
singly such that, no proposition will stand outside the system. Blanshard further claimed 
that a proposition cannot be tested mainly on correspondence procedure because 
perception may not give accurate knowledge of it. Blanshard's view is informed by the 
assumption that the coherence theory begins with the observation that will test the truth of 
a belief by seeing its implications and other logically connected beliefs. This is suggesting 
that all truths eventually hang together and make a unit whose articulation requires the 
rehearsal of all the constituent truths such that an instance of hanging together with a 
falsifying effect will not make the statement true. When so stated, the Coherence Theory 
of Truth appears only as an improvement on the Correspondence Theory of Truth because 
it accounts for the truth of many beliefs as the content of communication in matters of 
assertion and discord.

Even though Coherence Theory appears as an improvement on the Correspondence 
Theory, there are some problems associated with it. These problems include;
1. The Coherence Theory would seem too permissive as a theory of truth, such that so 

many propositions can be considered true just because they cohere with the system 
to which they belong. If this is taken then, how do we evaluate the many systems that 
serve as the determinants of truth for propositions?

2. It might be difficult to affirm legitimately that one system of belief is better than the 
other with the Coherence Theory of Truth (Dancy, 1985).

3. The notion of truth that this theory presents might only be relative to the system to 
which the beliefs belong (Owolabi, 2000).

(C). DEFLATIONARY THEORY OF TRUTH
According to the Deflationary Theory of Truth, to assert that a statement is true is just to 
assert the statement itself. For example, to say, “Snow is white” is true, or that it is true that 
'Snow is white' is equivalent to saying simply that 'Snow is white'. This according to 
Deflationary Theory is all that can be said significantly about the truth of “Snow is white”.
For the deflationists, truth has no nature beyond what is captured in ordinary claims. 
Thus, to say “Snow is white” is true in case snow is white. The deflationists are of the view 
that philosophers looking for the nature of truth are bound to be frustrated because they 
are looking for something “that is not there”. The deflationary theory treats the truth 
predicate as having only a logical or grammatical function, rather than ascribing a 
property or relation to a truth bearer, as seen in Correspondence, Coherence, and 
Pragmatic theories.

(D) SEMANTIC THEORY OF TRUTH:    The semantic theory of truth holds that truth 
is a property of sentences (Ayer 1963). Hence, the claim that a proposition is true can be 
made only as a formal requirement regarding the language in which the proposition itself 
is expressed. Thus, according to Tarski, “It rained today” is true if and only if it rained 

202

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



today.
THE PRAGMATIC AS A THEORY OF TRUTH:  A DEFENSE AND 
RECONCILIATION

Pragmatism as a theory of truth cuts across the transcendental/ empirical 
distinction since it questions the common presupposition that there is an invidious 
distinction to be drawn between various kinds of truth. For the pragmatist, the true 
sentence is not true because they correspond to reality, and so there is no need to worry 
about what sort of reality we are dealing with or what sort is required, if any. The 
pragmatist also sees no need to worry about whether Plato or Kant was right in thinking 
that something non-spatio- temporal makes moral judgments true, nor about whether the 
absence of such a thing means that such judgments are “merely expressions of emotion”, 
or “merely conventional” or “merely subjective”. 

The Pragmatic Theory of Truth essentially considers the idea of truth to be an affair of 
practical experience ( James, 1948).  Pragmatic Theory of Truth according to Williams 
James, an apostle of the Pragmatic Theory of Truth, asserts that the truth of an idea is its 
predictive value. In this description, it is expedient to notice the emphasis on verifiability 
and usefulness. The pragmatic truth tests insist on judging the truth of a proposition by 
predicting the result of its truth and testing for those results. It further considers the truth 
of a proposition to be determined by its practicality. Hence, a proposition is true if 
whatever it affirms is practicable and realizable, while it is false if it is not. 

Pragmatic Theory holds that true beliefs are generally useful and false when 
beliefs are not. All human beings need the useful and if it is useful, according to the 
pragmatists, it is true. If a doctor wants to cure a patient, it is useful for the doctor to have 
true beliefs about what will cure the patient. The Pragmatic Theory categorically tells us 
that a proposition is true if and only if believing it and acting on it, is or would be useful. 
According to Charles Pierce another advocate of the Pragmatic Theory, practical 
usefulness is a criterion of meaningfulness with the supposition that a scientific term can 
be considered to be meaningful on the account that it has practical consequences. 
Accordingly, true ideas are those we can assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify 

  while false ideas are those we cannot (Wright 1948). This shows that truth is a relation 
between our beliefs, statements, and the satisfaction of our expectations. The belief and 
the statement that paracetamol will cure my headache is true if my expectation of curing 
the illness (headache) is satisfied by the use of paracetamol.

TRUTH AS USEFULNESS
William James understood the word “usefulness” in a very wide range. Among 

other things, Pragmatism is connected with satisfying the wills, and desires and reaching 
the pleasures of being in the world. In other words, something is useful if it is the measure 
to reach the purpose, and if it plays the role of a tool. Pragmatism in a profound subjective 
way changes the philosophy of life, its success, and its achievements. 

The pragmatic conception of truth is therefore fundamentally different from all 
the theories of truth particularly those that treat truth as an independent, final cognitive 

203

ODUNAYO The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth: A Defense And Reconciliation     



value. However, Pragmatism is as well a theory of truth, (Buczynska ; James 1904) 
possessing the truth that is not understood as a purpose itself but on the contrary, only as a 
measure to reach further purposes. Rational cognition of truth means reaching the end of 
the road. “We will never achieve the goal but we always come closer to it by improving 
ourselves. Even when the final goal is never reached, we are accomplishing another goal. 

 
Similarly, to the biological evolution that creates better and better species, in pragmatism, 
we are reaching the best truth, which also evolves, and changes, as a new one replaces the 
old one” (James, 1907, p.150). James alaso states that there are many different truths and 
they are close and inseparably connected to the object. “True ideas are those we can 
assimilate, validate, corroborate, and verify” (James, 1904). Therefore, ideas or beliefs 
are true if it “functions”. Even if false, it can be true if it “functions”. It is easy to notice 
that the true one will be true if it turns out to be useful and it will be convenient therefore to 
believe in it.

William James seems to have a psychological view of the problems of knowing or 
cognition. Our faith makes a view true. “Person X believes the judgment is true”. Through 
our acceptance, we take theories for granted. The longer we will be convinced of the idea's 
usefulness, the longer it will be true. A similar conception of truth in the doctrines of the 
Scientologist church, where according to its founder Ronald Hubbard, the truth for you is 
what you believe, is true. You do not have to believe in Scientology but you have to find 
your truth, the truth that will be good for you. 

Pragmatism principle was to James “an interpretation of all kinds of thought 
through drawing the right practical consequences (James, 1907). A Pragmatic principle 
was a tool for understanding and comparing different conceptions. The practical 
consequence of the view is the whole of the relation between an outlook and individual 
consciousness or rather lots of much separate consciousness. However, if we cannot 
translate certain ideas into concrete experience language, they have to be rejected as being 
cognitively empty. Practical consequences for William James are always concrete and 
individual. There are no abstractive, general practical consequences. They always exist 
“for someone”, for individual consciousness.

Moreover, they are not the same for everybody. Pragmatism in its depiction of 
truth meets the human being halfway(James,1907). It is a simplified thinking system, 
perfectly adjusted to the human being's needs but the one from the street, someone who 
hales theory and desires to achieve practical benefits immediately (James, 1907).

The American system of education places emphasis on practical thinking rather 
than theoretical. Theoretical thinking requires more knowledge and its practical 
application and so, it is more difficult. The core of this American system is the ability to 
acquire knowledge and its practical application. Moreover, it is good to know what is 
useful, and what should be known in practice and then you can supplement your 
education as far as you need it.

Such a model of education while it makes Americans extremely creative in 
thinking, does not mean that they do not make mistakes. Pragmatism, as mentioned 
before, has a big advantage in that it gives the right to make mistakes and to correct them, 
while the strict doctrine tries to foresee all possible circumstances. 

In William James' consideration and thinking about the world, we use many ways, 
but the most popular is common sense, which is also called realism. Its virtue is comfort 

204

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



and transparency in characterizing the world. Common sense is based on everyday 
experience, tradition, and authority. Theory can be in agreement with common sense in 
such a way that it considers its application in recurrent actions. This way of thinking is 
fully adjusted to the individual's needs and changing circumstances in this world. People 
have gotten different needs so they apply different methods of satisfying them. 
Emotional, intellectual, and practical needs, which are an inherent element of human life 
often, push a man to discover such forms of activity, which are most right for him.

The “usefulness” James wrote about, in the contemporary world has a very 
important position in people's lives and their everyday matters. A lack of users does not 
attract our attention and we forget about it very quickly when something has no meaning 
to us. When we perform different activities, it gives us a very bad impression, 
experiences, and emotions but not necessarily without “useful” consequences. These 
consequences have a good influence on our further behavior. It means that if we do 
something wrong and the consequences are unpleasant at the same time they will lead us 
in the future if only we draw the right conclusions.

William James insists that searching for the truth was a certain habit of action. 
Such habits give us what we want and lead us to where we want to get. It is worth 
mentioning here, that owning the truth was also a tool for proper and effective action. 
Theories became the instruments and the tools, which served to link and systematize 
observing sentences and calculate which make occurring of certain events prognosis 
possible, events which are described by the observing sentences. According to William 
James' Pragmatism, the value of an idea is dependent upon its usefulness in the practical 
world rather than its absolute truth.

The pragmatic theory of truth is unique amongst its peers and stands as one of the 
most innovative and subsequently criticized theories of truth currently formulated. 
Deriving from what is often seen by many philosophers as an extremely subjective 
philosophy, the Pragmatic Theory of Truth states that a belief is true as far as it fulfills 
some role or achieves some particular result and that it remains true only insofar as it 
continues to yield beneficial results relative to our circumstances.

CRITIQUE OF THE PRAGMATIC THEORY OF TRUTH
Two major critics of the theory (Russell, 2013), Bertrand Russell and Hillary Putman each 
raised independent objections to this assertion, each of particularly serious importance. 
Russell on his part takes issue with the allegedly subjective aspects of the pragmatic 
theory of truth, inferring that numerous inherently untrue or even immoral actions can be 
justified by the Pragmatists' definitions of truth. Likewise,(Putman, 2013)  raised his 
criticism, that being the necessity of relevant 'consequences' to an action or state of affairs 
means that there are numerous areas of the past that constitute potentially 'essentially 
evidence – transcendent truths'.  In the meantime, the advocator of pragmatic theory 
purports that the majority of these and other criticism leveled against the pragmatic theory 
of truth are just misinterpretations of what is meant by the pragmatic theory of truth and 
how it relates to the rest of the world, including what is referred to as “the fact” (James 
1907). It is this major partition that the pragmatists insist upon between facts and truths, 
with the emphasis that truths need to be relevant rather than independent of those creating 
them.  Here lies the greatest strength of the pragmatic theory of truth. That is its ability to 

205

ODUNAYO The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth: A Defense And Reconciliation     



remain dynamic and fluctuating according to the real-world application of new 
knowledge and information while allowing for realistic criteria for lasting if not 
permanent, truths.

The pragmatic theory of truth has undergone several iterations (repetitions) in its 
lifespan, though certain elements remain consistent and constant throughout all 
formulations. One of these iterations is that Pragmatism has its root in fallibilism and the 
development of truth as new and contradictory evidence becomes known. Fallibilism is 
the acceptance that despite our best efforts, there is no single truth that can be said to be 
true with total certainty until every single avenue of investigation has been exhausted and 
until the last man has had his say and contributed his share. As such, pragmatists regard 
truth as a developing project that is likely impossible to complete. This does not prevent 
relevant truths from being formulated, however, as the purpose of truth is now 
constructive rather than reflective of the base state of the world (Dewey, 2013).

Another iteration is the location of truth as an internal, human state rather than 
external objective quality of the world. William James uses the example of constellations 
in the night sky to demonstrate this point, stating that while the stars “suffer us” to impose 
our unique order on their formations in the sky, they are never the fewer ideas that have 
relevance only relative to the human observer who takes them into account (James, 1909). 
Truth thus becomes something that is known, thought, or said about reality, and 
consequently constitutes numerically an additional to it.

The necessity for truths to have some form of agreement with reality is still a key 
aspect of the pragmatic definition of truth, as it is with all theories of truth, though it is 
clear that what is meant by pragmatists by this phrase is substantially different. The most 
objectionable aspect of this theory comes from James' insistence that a reality 
independent of human thinking is not simply difficult to find, but impossible. Instead, the 
pragmatists differentiate truth from the facts of the matter, by examining whether the 
beliefs regarding the object or state of affairs in question will have any meaningful 
practical consequences for those who are addressing that state of affairs. 
However, Bertrand Russell believes that the pragmatic theory of truth fails to offer 
sufficient grounds for refusing certain moral truths that he regards as standing on higher, 
universal grounds. Bertrand Russell's objections to the pragmatic theory of truth can best 
be summarized as moral objections rather than metaphysical ones. His criticism is 
twofold. Firstly, he believes that James' theory of truth allows for any belief to be held as 
true as long as it “pays to believe”, regardless of even the facts of the matter. This for 
Russell has unacceptable consequences for both moral standards and simple factual 
statements (Russell, 2013). The moral objection is that given the right combination of 
circumstances and enough consensus amongst a population, any idea can be found to be 
correct. In this case, Russell himself made two mistakes. The first is the assumption that 
any human population of sufficient diversity would find a set of beliefs that guides the 
action of a person or group. James and  contemporary Neo- pragmatism Richard Rorty 
emphasizes that any pragmatic moral theory must necessarily encompass as many 
perspectives as possible to be truly workable in a long-term way necessitated by any 
effective pragmatic truth (Rorty, n.d)

Secondly, Russell makes the mistake of assuming that moral values have some 
source outside of the social moral codes that are created and enforced by a given 

206

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 



community (Russell, 2013).  He believes that a theory of truth such as pragmatism that 
appeals to social rather than objective ground for morality is inherently doomed to result 
in a 'might is right' paradigm with no standards of ascertaining right from wrong. 
However, given the pragmatic requirement for any truth to be vetted by its continued 
functioning “in the long and overall”, it seems unlikely that any moral theory based on the 
Pragmatic Theory of Truth would fail to meet the criteria of serving the best interests of as 
many human beings as possible. Moreover, those that do not would be swiftly abandoned 
or else forced out of favor by those they fail to take account of. 

While Russell's moral arguments against the Pragmatic Theory of Truth appear to 
be largely based on his distaste for the idea of non-objective morality, the underlying 
argument against Pragmatism is that Pragmatism allows for such a plurality of truths as to 
be functionally useless. Further criticism from James' work expands Russell's objections 
further, that if satisfaction of a desired end is all that is necessary to have a true belief, then 
how do we account for pleasing beliefs with erroneous facts or dissatisfactory beliefs that 
coincide with fact? However, both of these arguments rest on a similar mistake because 
pragmatism has never made the argument that truth is independent of facts, only that truth 
is made relative to both the facts and our needs and interests.

 In the case of Russell's objection, the pragmatist would respond that the only 
reason why both beliefs would be seen as equally valid is that there is no definitive fact, 
that would otherwise invalidate one side as a candidate for truth, nor is there any great 
upshot to one belief over the other. In response to these objections, James believed that it 
is the same “inherent relation to the reality of a belief that gives us that specific truth 
satisfaction,” and that any view that contradicts the factual basis of reality would be a 
belief that would not even survive its first test of validity on the empirical method. (James, 
1908) Thus, Russell's objection to Pragmatism on the grounds of its rejection of factual 
reality stems from a misunderstanding of how pragmatists define the relation between 
facts and truths.

CONCLUSION
 Despite the various objections leveled against the Pragmatic Theory Truth, its strengths 
are far better situated to overcoming the criticism of Bertrand Russell and Hillary Putman. 
Pragmatic theory and its emphasis on the distinction between facts and truths, and its 
important emphasis on fallibilism are the key undertones of the Pragmatic Theory of 
Truth. The Pragmatic Theory of Truth can maintain a cohesive view of the truth as a goal-
oriented view of the fact of the world for which different criteria for validity apply and 
which allows for a more realistic sense of what a true belief is versus other objective 
theories. Despite these advantages, many remain skeptical still that the Pragmatic Theory 
of Truth is workable, particularly regarding the criticisms raised over its supposed 
inability to deal with truths regarding the past. Howbeit, these criticisms seem to be more 
emotional than substantive

In addition, another major strength of the Pragmatic Theory of Truth is its 
flexibility, which allows truth never to be above the suspicions of knowledge and 
evidence that might prove contrary. In many respects, this is as well a source of some 
apparent discomfort for some critics. It seems, therefore, that the major fault with the 
Pragmatic Theory of Truth is its inability to accommodate the standard of objective truths 

207

ODUNAYO The Pragmatic Theory Of Truth: A Defense And Reconciliation     



that other theories have promised, it is however problematic. 
Finally, it is instructive to maintain despite all criticisms that the Pragmatic 

Theory of Truth is a theory that understands the role of human goals and is genuinely 
interested in interpreting knowledge that is the continuing necessity for opening and 
expanding the dialogue to find ever more useful truths in a changing world. It is by 
objective measurements probably well suited to accomplish this unique role

References
ndAristotle, (2002.). Metaphysics.Translated by Sachs, Joe(2  edition). Santa Fe, N.M. 

Green Lion Press.
Ayer, A. J. (1963). Truth. In: The Concept of a Person. Palgrave, London. p. 166.
Buczynska, H.  : James ,W. (1904). The meaning of Truth.Cambridge University  Press. 

p.105.
Dancy, J. (1985). An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. New York; Wiley Ltd. 

p. 115
Dewey,J. (2013). A short catechism concerning Truth. Trans. Array pp. 450 LA: 

pragmatism course package. Rockney Jacobsen. Ist Waterloo ON: Laurier printing 
services. pp.154- 168.

James , W. (1948). Essays in Pragmatism. New York: Hafner Publishing Co. p. 214
James, W. (2010). A dialogue. Trans. Array the meaning of truth: A sequel to Pragmatism. 

Austrailia floating Press. pp. 15-27.
James,W. (1907). Lecture VI: pragmatisms Conception of Truth. Trans. Array 

Pragmatism. pp. 77-78.
James,W. (1907). The meaning of Truth. Cambridge University Press. p. 15.
James,W. (1908). The Pragmatist Account of Truth and its Misunderstanders. 

Philosophical reviews 1- 13.
Lynch, M. P. (2001). The Nature of Truth; Classic and Contemporary Perspectives. A 

Bradford Book, The MIT Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England. p. 
115- 117.

Mackie, J. L. (1978). Truth Probability and Paradox, Oxford Claredon Press. p. 9.
Owolabi, K. A. (2000). Issues and Problems in Philosophy. Ibadan; Grovas Publishing 

Press. p. 62
Popper, K. R. (1972). Objective Knowledge, Oxford, Clarendon Press. p. 44
Putman, H. (2013). James's Theory of Truth. Trans. Array PP. 450 LA: pragmatism course 

package. Rockney Jacobsen. Ist Waterloo ON: Laurier printing services. pp. 166- 
180.

Rorty, R. Pragmatism, Relativism, and Irrationalism. Trans. Array pp. 160- 175.
Russell, B. (2022). My Philosophical Development. United kingdom: Taylor & Francis.p. 

188
Russell, B. (2013). The definition of truth. Trans. Array PP. 450 LA: pragmatism course 

package. Rockney Jacobsen. Ist Waterloo ON: Laurier printing services. p. 175.
Woozley, A. D. (1978). Theory of Knowledge, London: Hutchinson And Co. Publishers. 

p. 126
Wright, H. B. (1999). Crispin Eds.A Companion To The Philosophy Of Language, p. 309.

208

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 3 Issue 1, 2023
ISSN: 2786-9792

June 


