THE ULTIMATE CRITERION OF TRUTH

Paul Gerard Horrigan, Ph.D., 2007.

A criterion means a standard or a means of judging something. When we talk about the
criterion of truth we therefore mean the standard or means by which truth is manifested as such.
What are the types of criteria? We must distinguish, first of all, between an internal criterion and
an external criterion.

Internal criterion. If an art collector appraises an oil painting that does not have the
painter’s signature, he will have to discover the identity of the painter by means of various signs
within the painting itself, such as the characteristic brushstrokes made, the typical oil colors
used, the perspective utilized and the chiaroscuro and contrapposto employed throughout the
painting in question. Doing this the art collector has an internal criterion that belongs to the very
constitution of the painting itself, by which he may judge or determine the true identity of the
painter.

External criterion. The external criterion, on the other hand, is not part of the make-up or
the constitution of the thing judged, but is rather external to it (outside it). For example, a
manager of a restaurant has recourse to various references (i.e., previous employers) in order to
be able to judge if the person applying for a job is reliable and trustworthy.

After having distinguished between internal criteria and external criteria let us go now to
some more forms of criteria as a means of manifesting truth, namely, subjective criteria,
objective criteria, proximate criterion, remote criterion, and finally, the ultimate and supreme
criterion. The subjective criteria for truth pertains to the knowing subject rather than to the
external object or thing (res). We refer here to our sensible and intellective knowing powers.
Objective criteria for manifesting truth, instead, do not pertain to the knowing person but to the
object or thing judged. They include the internal and external factors and qualities of the object
or thing in question. The proximate criterion is the criterion utilized here and now for
manifesting truth, and if this criterion is known to have value by reason of a further criterion, this
latter would be the remote criterion for the manifestation of truth. Finally, the ultimate and
supreme criterion stands at the summit of all criteria and is the test or standard of all truth.

Now, what is the ultimate or supreme criterion of truth (which is also the supreme motive
for certitude)? It is objective evidence. Before dealing with the nature of objective evidence let us
first of all explain what evidence is. Etymologically, evidence is derived from the Latin e-videre,
meaning “to see clearly.” Etymologically speaking, that quality of an object or thing (res) by
which it is clearly visible is its evidence. That which our eyes behold clearly before us is evident.
Now, because of the analogy between the sense of sight and the reason, our term was transferred
from the object of the eyes to the object of the mind or to the intellectual apprehension. Thus, we
say that that object or thing which is objectively clear to the intellect is said to be evident, and
that by which it is clear or evident is its evidence. Evidence is the immediate guarantee of the
truth of a judgment and, therefore, the reason why the intellect ultimately affirms it. Evidence

1
means the clearness and apparentness of the existent object revealing itself to the intellect, as
apprehended by the lumen of the understanding.

What is objective evidence? We call evidence objective to indicate that the criterion of
truth is not something that proceeds subjectively from some human knowing faculty or power,
but rather belongs to the object that our knowing powers are directed to, marking that particular
object as true for the apprehension of the said knowing faculty or power. Objective evidence
refers to the intelligibility or understandability of the thing manifested to the mind. It refers to the
object or thing as clearly known.

We must now explain: 1. immediate evidence, 2. mediate evidence, 3. intrinsic evidence

and 4. extrinsic evidence. 1. Immediate evidence. When no reasoning is required to see the truth
of a judgment, that is, when the judgment is self-evident, its evidence is said to be immediate.
Truths like the fact that the world exists and the first of all principles, the principle of non-
contradiction, which states that something cannot be and not be at the same time and in the same
respect, are self-evident truths. Glenn explains that “sometimes truth is so evident that it not only
requires no process of reasoning to reach it, but obtrudes itself, so to speak, upon the mind. It is
like the daylight in an unshuttered room; its presence is not to be doubted. Such evidence is
called immediate because no medium, no process of discovery, is necessary to find it and
recognize it. Truths that are immediately evident are called self-evident. Thus the truth that the
sun is shining today is immediately evident; it is a self-evident truth. So also is the truth that ‘A
totality is greater than any one of its component parts.’ So also is the truth that ‘A thing cannot
be at the same time existent and non-existent.’ So also is the truth, ‘I exist,’ and the truth, ‘I can
think and reason validly.’”1

2. Mediate evidence. When our judgment is not self-evident, that is, when reasoning
needs to be employed in order to establish it, its evidence is mediate. We have, for example,
mediate evidence for the judgment that the sum of the angles of a triangle is equal to two right
angles. “Sometimes, truth is not immediately known; a medium is required for the mind to reach
it, a process of reasoning, a ‘digging out’ of evidence. In this case the evidence itself is called
mediate, and the truths known by such evidence are not self-evident, but mediately evident
truths. Such truths are like the daylight that one admits to a tightly shuttered room; the process of
loosing and opening the shutters is required before the light shines in. Thus it is not immediately
evident (not self-evident), but mediately evident, that ‘The sum of the angles of any triangle is
180 degrees.’”2

3. Intrinsic evidence. Evidence is intrinsic when the reason for assent is in the reality (the
object or thing) about which the judgment is made, either immediately or mediately. “The
evidence is said to be intrinsic when the grounds for assent to the judgment as true are seen to lie
immediately or mediately in the reality itself which the judgment interprets; and in this case the
assent is said to be an assent of reason or science.”3

1
P. GLENN, Criteriology, B. Herder, St. Louis, 1933, p. 129.
2
P. GLENN, op. cit., pp. 129-130.
3
P. COFFEY, Epistemology, vol. 2, Peter Smith, Glouchester, MA, 1958, p. 262.

2
 4. Extrinsic evidence. When it happens that the reason for one’s assent is the testimony of
some authority, the evidence is extrinsic. “When the ground of our assent lies not in the
interpreted reality itself, but in some testimony or authority which is considered to vouch
sufficiently for the truth of the judgment, the evidence is said to be extrinsic; and the assent is
then described as an assent of belief or faith. It is clear that extrinsic evidence can be an adequate
test of the truth of a judgment, and a sufficient motive of certitude, only when and because the
testimony or authority on which we rely is already judged by us to have the requisite conditions
for guaranteeing the truth of the judgment and grounding our firm assent thereto. These
conditions, in the source of our information, are two in number, viz. knowledge and veracity
(‘scientia et veracitas’). In other words, before accepting a judgment on authority we must first
be certain of these two other judgments, ‘The authority in question is not deceived, but well-
informed,’ and ‘The authority is not deceiving us, but is trustworthy.’ Now for the truth of these
two judgments we must have adequate intrinsic evidence, i.e. evidence lying in the subject-
matter itself of these two judgments: for if we accepted these judgments also only on some other
authority, the same question would arise about the credentials of this latter, and thus we should
find ourselves involved in an endless regress. All extrinsic evidence therefore rests ultimately on
intrinsic evidence, and cannot itself be the supreme test of truth or the ultimate motive of
certitude.”4

The Supreme and Ultimate Criterion of Truth: Intrinsic, Immediate Objective

Evidence

The supreme and ultimate criterion of truth is intrinsic objective evidence. More
specifically, we say that the supreme and ultimate criterion of truth is intrinsic, immediate
objective evidence, or in one word, self-evidence. Bittle explains that “experience shows
conclusively that all knowledge is based ultimately on the self-evidence of reality. The structure
of our common, scientific, and philosophic knowledge is a very complex thing, built up
gradually and laboriously from previous judgments that have been recognized as true. But if we
trace our knowledge back to its origin, we will find that it is based on immediate sense-
perception, immediate consciousness, and immediate insight into first principles. And if we
examine the truths acquired from these sources, we will observe that they reveal reality to us in
such a manner that the intellect clearly perceives that this reality is so self-evident as to exclude
the very possibility of doubt and error. And this self-evidence of reality is seen by the intellect to
be the final and ultimate ground for its judgments and certitude. We have but to consider that all
our knowledge derives its validity from the necessary and universal truth of a few first principles,
in order to see for ourselves that self-evidence is the ultimate criterion and motive. Such
principles are the principles of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle, sufficient reason,
and causality. They underlie all science and all knowledge. A little reflection will convince us of
this.

“There are certain general principles which are the foundation of science and knowledge
in all their ramifications. Such are the judgments, ‘The whole is greater than any of its parts,’
‘two things identical with a third are identical with each other,’ ‘what is true of a logical whole
must be true of the logical parts of that whole,’ ‘2 + 2 = 4,’ etc. Once the meaning of these
concepts is understood, the necessary truth of these judgments becomes self-evident and needs
4
P. COFFEY, op. cit., vol. 2, pp. 262-263.

3
no demonstration. Take, for example, the judgment that ‘The whole is greater than any of its
parts.’ By ‘whole’ I mean ‘a sum of constituent units’ and by ‘part’ I mean ‘one of a number of
units constituting a sum.’ Since the ‘whole’ is thus seen to be a ‘sum,’ and a ‘part’ is seen to be
one of the ‘units’ of this sum, my understanding of these concepts reveals to me the self-evident
truth beyond the possibility of doubt and error that ‘The whole must be greater than any of its
parts.’ Because, if this were not so, the ‘whole’ would not be a ‘whole’ and the ‘part’ would not
be a ‘part’; and that would involve the contradiction that ‘being’ would not be ‘being’ but would
be identical with ‘not-being.’ Thus, the truth of this judgment is seen to run through the
principles of non-contradiction and identity down to the fundamental and absolutely simple
concepts of ‘being’ and ‘not-being.’ If there could be a possibility of doubt and error in this, then
truth and certitude is simply impossible of attainment.

“And so it is with all principles and all knowledge, whether of the existential or of the
ideal order: they rest on the self-evident principles of identity, non-contradiction, excluded
middle, sufficient reason, and causality. In other words, the ultimate criterion of all truth and the
ultimate motive of all certitude lie in the self-evidence (internal, immediate, objective evidence)
of reality as it manifests itself to the intellect and is recognized by the intellect as such.”5

5
C. BITTLE, Reality and the Mind, Bruce, Milwaukee, 1959, pp. 303-305.