Name:
Tutor:
Course:
Date:

Six Great Ideas by Adler
In Mortimer Adler’s Six Great Ideas, chapter eight analyzes the human pursuit of the truth. The search for truth, as Adler acknowledges, is built on addition of new ideas, or on those already existing, which replace the less accurate truths or formulate better ones, rectifying the errors or the faults and avoiding generalization arrived through negative judgments. Adler inherently argues that truth has both subjective and objective elements, in which people should incorporate skepticism of mild form that vehemently questions not on the objectivity but on its subjectivity. I agree with Adler that the search for the truth is endless.
Experts who have pursued the truth and authoritatively can verify their stand like historians, mathematicians, and scientists have reached only to such feats through judgments agreed upon themselves in those fields. This is not to mean that the truth in this case is incorrigibility and finality of certitude. Scholars indicate that more research doubt can resurface on the truth but this does not threaten the present status of established truth. In cases in which the experts do not agree and opinion conflicts emerge, criticism, researches, and investigations into the issues bring disputes into resolve and achievement of agreement becomes fruitful.
The achievement of agreement, from disputed perspectives to those undisputed, represents a direction to search for the truth. Adler acknowledges the truth sphere as the disagreements, which are profitable inherently given that the resolution harnesses different opinions toward agreement. Adler says, “The sphere of truth, in short, is the sphere of those matters about, which we think disagreement is profitable precisely because we think that these are matters about which it is possible to resolve differences” (45).
On the other hand, Adler sorts matters into two aspects in which they are complete opposite: the matters of truth and taste. In taste matters, Adler asserts that disputes are futile and the people’s differences are not reconcilable. This explains the reason people gladly live with as well as tolerate opinion differences expressing divergent preferences and tastes. Truth matters as highlighted by Adler form opposite maxim to the taste matters. Disputes on matters of the truth result into fruitful agreement and Adler encourages the argument that there are differences in opinions, beliefs, or judgments of truth; he also hopes that such disagreements can be solved through resolution. Although the disagreements may be difficult and challenging in coming with a solution, Adler urges people not to follow a timeline and not to give up because this amounts to abandoning search for the truth.
Another important point Adler poses to readers in the examination of taste and truth spheres is polarity. The truth sphere, according to Adler, is transcultural although occasionally it may fail to be so and acquire this characteristic in the future. He further argues that experts’ agreement, especially those in experimental science and mathematics transcends national, cultural, and ethnic boundaries and barriers, separating mankind in sub-groups. Adler further acknowledges the truth sphere as global, extending to the whole of the human race. On the contrary, the taste sphere is divided according to the multifaceted factions of the mankind and inherently remains so. He gives the example of cuisines in which certain people prefer French or Italian cuisine whereas others prefer Japanese or Chinese cooking. Tastes are not like truths calibrated by principles, laws, or theories.
Adler is skeptical about philosophy and places it separate from the experimental disciplines like science and mathematics. Historical facts indicate that philosophers have never found common ground in the way experimental sciences and mathematics find and settle for the established truths. Adler inherently sets the record straight by saying, “When we talk about the pursuit of truth, we are regarding truth as an object of desire and, in doing so, we are in effect attributing goodness to truth” (67).
Religious beliefs are viewed from a global perspective and appear irreconcilable and not malleable to rational resolution. This makes scholars align them with taste matters, and in this case dispute becomes futile. However, certain perspective makes religious beliefs a truth sphere as opposed to taste. First, the self-determination makes judgment, which is genuine and disputable. This makes religion to belong to the truth sphere rather than to the taste one. Second, religion, like philosophy, forms a character that entails truth and taste; Adler quickly asserts the two can be assigned the appropriate sphere. Third, religious beliefs, as well as opinions in philosophy, belong to the truth sphere, and the disputed issues can be resolved rationally. Thus, the difficulties and challenges should be resolved as an obligation in the path of truth pursuit – even if a time span is needed to reach specific agreement.
In conclusion, Adler considers the truth pursuit as the human mind’s ultimate good and attributing moral obligation as the earnest search for truth. Adler is clear by insisting that people should regard themselves as committed in life to search for the truth.