<ALETHOLOGIE />
<ALETHOLOGIE /> is an analytical module of the PTL systematics that concentrates on a single, yet in its scope extraordinarily consequential question: Which concept of truth underlies a philosophical position – and what work does this concept perform in argument, method, and practice?
The module does not aim at deciding which theory of truth is the correct one. It aims at the methodically controlled reconstruction of what a text – explicitly or implicitly – presupposes as truth, which conception it thereby aligns itself with, and what structural consequences this has for its argumentation. Truth claims are rarely declared. They are embedded in formulations such as "it is in fact the case," "this can be substantiated," "everyone would have to agree," or "this proves itself in practice" – and it is precisely this indicator language that <ALETHOLOGIE /> renders analytically visible.
The methodological centrepiece is the Five-Dimensions-Analysis: every conception of truth is reconstructed along five axes. The ontological dimension asks after the bearers of truth (truthbearers: sentences, propositions, judgements) and the makers of truth (truthmakers: facts, states, practices, systems). The epistemological dimension asks by which procedures truth is recognised or justified. The dimension of validity theory asks what legitimises a truth claim – correspondence with reality, coherence within a system, consensus in discourse, or pragmatic vindication. The semantic dimension asks which logical and linguistic function the predicate "true" assumes within the position – whether it is employed substantively, deflationarily, or performatively. The cognitivity model, finally, asks what epistemic status truth possesses: objective criterion, regulative idea, or performative act.
On this basis, <ALETHOLOGIE /> distinguishes between nine paradigmatic conceptions of truth – ranging from correspondence theory, through coherence and consensus theory, to deflationism, pragmatism, constructivism, and relativism – and identifies distinct variants and typical error forms for each conception. As error diagnoses, three fallacies are of particular relevance here: epistemisation (truth is equated with justification), semanticisation (truth is reduced to grammatical function), and normativisation (truth is identified with epistemic value or obligation).
→ <ALETHOLOGIE /> operates as a cross-sectional module: assumptions about truth pervade ontological, epistemic, validity-theoretic, and normative analyses alike. → It does not conclude with classification, but with a creative counter-test: <FINDETRUTHCONCEPTALTERNATIVE /> asks how the argumentation and conclusions of the text would change were a radically different concept of truth to underlie it.
<ALETHOLOGIE> ... </ALETHOLOGIE>
<PTL>
<ZIELE>
<ZIEL>Precise identification and classification of truth claims in texts and positions (explicit and implicit)</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Typological assignment to paradigmatic conceptions of truth (correspondence, coherence, consensus, pragmatism, deflationism, among others)</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Five-dimensional analysis of each concept of truth: ontology, epistemology, theory of validity, semantics, cognitivity model</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Reconstruction of the functional role of truth in the text's argument, method and practice</ZIEL>
<ZIEL>Critical counter-examination through alternative concepts of truth (FINDETRUTHCONCEPTALTERNATIVE)</ZIEL>
</ZIELE>
<THEMA>Philosophical concepts and conceptions of truth</THEMA>
<PERSPEKTIVEN>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Ontological (truthbearer and truthmaker)</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Epistemological (procedures and scope of cognition)</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Theory of validity (regimes of justification and burden of proof)</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Semantic (use and function of the truth predicate)</PERSPEKTIVE>
<PERSPEKTIVE>Cognitivity model (status of truth as knowledge)</PERSPEKTIVE>
</PERSPEKTIVEN>
<METHODEN>
<METHODE>Five-dimensional analysis: reconstruction along ontology, epistemology, theory of validity, semantics, cognitivity model</METHODE>
<METHODE>Truthmaker/truthbearer diagnostics: examination of which entities bear truth and what performs truthmaking functions</METHODE>
<METHODE>Disquotation and deflation test: examination of whether "true" functions merely as a logical device or substantively</METHODE>
<METHODE>Conceptual demarcation from validity and justification: categorial separation of truth / epistemic relation</METHODE>
<METHODE>Quality criteria and error diagnostics: identification of epistemization, semanticization and normativization</METHODE>
</METHODEN>
<KERNFRAGEN>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Ontologie">What is truth – and what are its bearers (truthbearers)?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Truthmaker">What does truth refer to – and what makes something true?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Epistemologie">How do we recognize truth – and which epistemic procedures are guiding?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Geltung">What legitimizes truth claims in the position under consideration?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Semantik">How is the truth predicate used linguistically and logically?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Kognitivität">What status does truth have in the text's cognitivity model?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Systematik">Is the theory of truth monistic, pluralistic or context-sensitive?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Abgrenzung">How does truth relate to grounding, justification and evidence?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Normativität">What normative implications are tied to truth?</KERNFRAGE>
<KERNFRAGE dim="Begriffsökologie">Which competing concepts appear – correctness, validity, acceptability, verifiability?</KERNFRAGE>
</KERNFRAGEN>
<KATEGORIEN>
<KATEGORIE>Correspondence theory</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Coherence theory</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Consensus theory</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Pragmatism (verification/warranted assertibility)</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Deflationism / minimalism</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Redundancy theory</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Performative truth</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Pluralism (domain pluralism)</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Constructivism</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Relativism / contextualism</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Truthmaker vs. truthbearer</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Objectivism vs. anti-objectivism</KATEGORIE>
<KATEGORIE>Epistemization of truth (error diagnosis)</KATEGORIE>
</KATEGORIEN>
<REGELN>
<REGEL1>Systematically identify all passages in which truth claims are raised, explicitly or implicitly</REGEL1>
<REGEL2>Categorize the identified concepts of truth using the category table and assign them to a paradigmatic conception</REGEL2>
<REGEL3>Differentiate further by distinguishing three distinct variants for each conception, insofar as the text supports this</REGEL3>
<REGEL4>Analyze the identified concept of truth along the five dimensions: ontology, epistemology, theory of validity, semantics, cognitivity model</REGEL4>
<REGEL5>Formulate a well-founded judgment on the function of the concept of truth and examine possible errors (epistemization, normativization)</REGEL5>
</REGELN>
<ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
<KRITERIUM>Precise identification and classification of the conceptions of truth employed</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Complete and correct reconstruction of the truthmaker and truthbearer relations</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Clear distinction between truth, validity and justification</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Well-grounded analysis of the normative and epistemic implications of the concept of truth</KRITERIUM>
<KRITERIUM>Textual proximity, fidelity of assignment and internal consistency of the analysis</KRITERIUM>
</ANALYSEKRITERIEN>
<SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>
<BEGRIFFSANALYSE ziel="Definition and clarification of 'truth' and related concepts in the text">
Identify and clarify how the concept of "truth" is used in the respective passages. Examine ambiguity, vagueness and possible Pickwickian-sense usages.
</BEGRIFFSANALYSE>
<ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE ziel="Elucidation of the truthmaker and truthbearer structure">
Analyze what kind of reality or facts the position posits as truth-constituting, and which entities function as truthbearers.
</ONTOLOGISCHEANALYSE>
<EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE ziel="Analysis of the possibilities and procedures of cognition">
Examine how, according to the position, truth can be recognized, justified or rejected. Examine fallibility and epistemic scope.
</EPISTEMISCHEANALYSE>
<GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE ziel="Determination of the regime of justification">
Clarify on what basis truth claims are legitimized: empirical evidence, logical coherence, consensus, pragmatic verification, or a combination thereof.
</GELTUNGSTHEORETISCHEANALYSE>
<SEMANTISCHEANALYSE ziel="Examination of the meaning and use of the truth predicate">
Analyze whether "true" is used substantively or deflationarily. Examine the disquotation scheme, redundancy diagnosis and performative dimensions.
</SEMANTISCHEANALYSE>
</SPECIFIC_ANALYSIS_TAGS>
<METAPRUEFUNGEN>
<PRUEFEKOHAERENZ />
<PRUEFETEXTBEZUG />
<FINDETRUTHCONCEPTALTERNATIVE>
After completing the primary analysis: choose an alternative conception of truth and reconstruct how the text's main thesis, argumentation and conclusions would change under this conception.
</FINDETRUTHCONCEPTALTERNATIVE>
<ERLAEUTERERELEVANZ />
</METAPRUEFUNGEN>
<TEXTERSTELLUNG>
<ANTWORESTRIKTANALYSEORIENTIERT />
<ANTWORTEKREATIV modus="Alternative concept of truth">
<ANWEISUNG>
Analyze the given position under the guiding idea: What would change if a radically different concept of truth were assumed as the basis? Show this for ontology, epistemology, theory of validity, semantics and cognitivity model.
</ANWEISUNG>
</ANTWORTEKREATIV>
</TEXTERSTELLUNG>
</PTL>