“We think only when we are confronted with problems.” – John Dewey.
The preceding thought experiment was proposed by John Dewey (1859–1952), an American philosopher. Because he created a daringly innovative point of view and followed its implications outside of academia—in the political and social arena—Dewey is regarded as the most influential American philosopher of the 20th century.
Dewey’s main preoccupation throughout his career was how people learn. He advocated educational reforms that are still being implemented in schools around the world today.
Dewey believed that learning is more than just going to school; it is a lifetime activity, the only way for humans to fully grow and prosper. If you’ve ever had a positive learning experience, whether at school or elsewhere, you know how pleasant and rewarding it is.
What is the secret to these encounters? Dewey was dead set on figuring it out. His research starts with art. Most people have had enough terrible school experiences to understand that learning does not happen by itself when a teacher wants it to.
In fact, for some people, the word “learning” conjures up images of “enduring endless boredom as some despotic authority figure tries to make you care about something foolish and unimportant”. Dewey was concerned by this attitude, which is all too widespread.
Remember that the goal of art, according to aesthetic realism, is to provide an accurate representation of reality. A photograph is good in the sense that it reflects its subject matter. Despite the fact that this viewpoint is widely held, we have seen why Dewey opposes it.
Realism also happens to be the most popular theory of the nature of truth. Truth realism (also known as correspondence theory) maintains that a proposition is “true” only in the sense that it accurately depicts reality.
At first glance, this viewpoint appears to be self-evident. On the mat, there is a cat. “The cat is on the mat,” I declare. My comment is correct since it accurately reflects the situation. How could anyone believe anything other than the truth?
However, deeper inspection reveals that this issue is akin to asking, “How could anyone think it’s OK for someone with eyes to draw a self-portrait without eyes?” Because such an image does not reflect reality, it must be incorrect.
We’ve seen how expressionism puts this method of thinking to the test. If the goal of art is to remedy an emotional problem, a self-portrait without eyes could be ideal. It might even be lovely if both the artist and the spectator see it that way.
While this beauty may be a genuine experience for the individuals involved, it is not absolute because it may not influence others in the same manner. For certain people at particular moments, the portrait is an emotionally successful tool.
Factual statements, on the other hand, are instruments employed to address intellectual difficulties. We term them “true” to the extent that they are successful. If I claim that the cat is on the mat and someone else discovers evidence showing the cat is not on the mat, my claim is still invalid. Its veracity is in question.
If, on the other hand, my statement allows me to accomplish something, for example, if telling you where the cat is allows you to catch it and remove it from the house, then it was true for our purposes.
To believe that there is more to truth than what works is to believe that there is some godlike figure that can compare naked words to raw reality without any ulterior motives. However, there is no such thing as an objective point of view.
Every point of view has a goal in mind, and truths are assertions that aid in achieving that goal.
Reference: Kaye, S. (2013). Philosophy: A Complete Introduction, John Carroll University, pp.194-205