According to Tarski, his theory applies only to artificial languages – especially the classical formal languages of symbolic logic – because our natural languages are vague and unencrypted. Other philosophers – Donald Davidson, for example – were not as pessimistic as Tarski when it came to analyzing truthful languages. Davidson has made progress in extending Tarski`s work to any natural language. This, he says, is at the same time the central element of a theory of the meaning of language. Davidson develops Frege`s original idea in his fundamental laws of arithmetic that the meaning of a declarative sentence is given by certain conditions in which it is true – this meaning is given by conditions of truth. It may be true for a group that (Jews, blacks, women…) (Christians, Whites, Men) are worse and for another group, the opposite may be true at the same time according to this theory. One of the values that pragmatists try to promote is tolerance and, in the name of tolerance, and in the name of tolerance, people are invited to respect the right of others to defend their own opinions. But if a person thinks that the truth is that tolerance is bad, then it can be right and tolerance can be both good and bad. This theory leads to applications of political power to resolve conflicts and has not led to a more tolerant group of societies in this world. Proponents of (2) believe that the facts are states that are preserved, that is, their presentation of the truth is in fact an analysis of the representation of truth (1). Differences of opinion are therefore largely related to the treatment of the counter-truth, which (1) simply identifies with the absence of truth. The approach also relativizes objection 3.C2.
The correspondence relationship must be reduced to underlying relationships between words or concepts and reality. Therefore, a theory of correspondence is little more than a spin-off of semantics and/or psychosemantics, that is, the theory of intentionality, which is interpreted as sanitizing (cf. Fodor 1989). This reminds us that correspondence as a relationship is no more – but no less – mysterious than semantic relationships in general. These relationships have strange characteristics, and they raise a large number of puzzles and difficult questions – the most infamous: can they be explained in relation to natural (causal) relationships or should they be considered as irreducible aspects of non-natural reality? Some philosophers have argued that semantic relationships are too mysterious to be taken seriously, usually on the grounds that they are not explicable in terms of naturalism. But we must keep in mind that this is a very general and extremely radical attack on semantics as a whole, with the idea that words and concepts can be things. The common practice of targeting this attack on the theory of correspondence seems misleading. With regard to the intelligibility of the correspondence report, the theory of correspondence will or will be consistent with the general theory of reference and intentionality. Peirce`s contemporary, the psychologist and philosopher William James (1842-1910), is appreciated for popularizing the pragmatic theory of truth. In a series of popular lectures and articles, James offers a report on the truth that, like peirces, is based on the practical role of the concept of truth. James also points out that truth is a kind of satisfaction: true beliefs are somehow satisfying convictions.
Unlike Peirce, James suggests that true beliefs can be satisfying without being unworkable and unassailable: in short, how they would withstand ongoing investigations and investigations. In lectures published as pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking (1907), James writes: Aristotle takes the report of Plato`s De Interpretatione without much change of mentality – in fact, the beginning of De Interpretatione reads as a direct continuation of the passages of the sophist mentioned above.