A
ASAMOAH_BOADI
Guest
Please, Helpme out with your views, over the years I have been reading many different theories of truth. Is single denination of truth posible?
Asamoah boadi.
Asamoah boadi.
- Status
R
rskempf
Guest
Yes, there is a single definition. You are close to the answer by coming to this site.
Pontious Pilate looked Jesus in the eye and sad, “What is truth!”
He was looking at it.
The single definition of truth is Jesus Christ.
Pontious Pilate looked Jesus in the eye and sad, “What is truth!”
He was looking at it.
The single definition of truth is Jesus Christ.
G
GratefulFred
Guest
Yes, a single definition is not only possible but guaranteed.
But the problem is whether or not THE TRUTH is accepted by those we encounter. Life quickly teaches us that many people disagree. Such disagreement makes it seem that there cannot be a single definition of truth. Even among those who do agree on major points there often is disagreement on certain points beyond just a different way of expressing the point.
We, ourselves, often find it difficult, or seemly impossible, to accept the truth or to understand it fully. Few of us ever got straight A+ grades in all subjects we studied. Even when I was top man in a class (rare) I realized that while I learned alot I certainly could not claim I learned it all. So possessing THE COMPLETE TRUTH is very rare in humans.
So we are society of individuals each lacking the complete truth and many of us are just plain selfish, wanting what we want and not wanting to be constrained by any single defintion of TRUTH. Thus, we live in a world where RELATIVISM prevails.
Here comes the guarantee.
Knowing, well at least believing, that God does exist and that He is the source of everything, GOD IS TRUTH. God cannot deceive nor be deceived. We may not understand what He has said, we may not want to accept what He has said, but it remains that GOD IS TRUTH. God made it clear that Jesus Christ is indeed the living Son of God. And Christ said, “I am the way, THE TRUTH, the life. No one comes to the Father except through ME.”
Christ went on to say many other things. Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church. Go and teach all nations. If a place does not accept your teaching, shake the dust off your sandals and go else where.
That last one respects free will and acknowledges that some will not accept the truth for reasons of their own. In such a world it does seem that there is no single defintion of turth. But there is - CHRIST. It is just that we do not understand CHRIST fully and many choose to reject HIM. Thus we live in a world of relativism.
But TRUTH does exist.
Happy Thanksgiving. Pray for an increase in Wisdom - right knowledge and judgment.
But the problem is whether or not THE TRUTH is accepted by those we encounter. Life quickly teaches us that many people disagree. Such disagreement makes it seem that there cannot be a single definition of truth. Even among those who do agree on major points there often is disagreement on certain points beyond just a different way of expressing the point.
We, ourselves, often find it difficult, or seemly impossible, to accept the truth or to understand it fully. Few of us ever got straight A+ grades in all subjects we studied. Even when I was top man in a class (rare) I realized that while I learned alot I certainly could not claim I learned it all. So possessing THE COMPLETE TRUTH is very rare in humans.
So we are society of individuals each lacking the complete truth and many of us are just plain selfish, wanting what we want and not wanting to be constrained by any single defintion of TRUTH. Thus, we live in a world where RELATIVISM prevails.
Here comes the guarantee.
Knowing, well at least believing, that God does exist and that He is the source of everything, GOD IS TRUTH. God cannot deceive nor be deceived. We may not understand what He has said, we may not want to accept what He has said, but it remains that GOD IS TRUTH. God made it clear that Jesus Christ is indeed the living Son of God. And Christ said, “I am the way, THE TRUTH, the life. No one comes to the Father except through ME.”
Christ went on to say many other things. Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build My church. Go and teach all nations. If a place does not accept your teaching, shake the dust off your sandals and go else where.
That last one respects free will and acknowledges that some will not accept the truth for reasons of their own. In such a world it does seem that there is no single defintion of turth. But there is - CHRIST. It is just that we do not understand CHRIST fully and many choose to reject HIM. Thus we live in a world of relativism.
But TRUTH does exist.
Happy Thanksgiving. Pray for an increase in Wisdom - right knowledge and judgment.
D
danserr
Guest
truth is the correspondence of meaning to reality-- Thomas Aquinas
for instance: 2+2=4 conveys a certain meaning, because the meaning corresponds to reality, you have truth.
the words “president obama is a pineapple” convey a certain meaning, but the meaning does not correspond to reality, so you do not have truth.
for instance: 2+2=4 conveys a certain meaning, because the meaning corresponds to reality, you have truth.
the words “president obama is a pineapple” convey a certain meaning, but the meaning does not correspond to reality, so you do not have truth.
J
JDaniel
Guest
While there may be more than one “definition,” there is only one true “meaning.” Truth to be the Truth must be grounded in something. Most people ground it in “reality.” But, reality’s perception may vary from person to person. It is far better and much less complicated to ground it in our eternal Father.
37 Pilate said, ‘So, then you are a king?’ Jesus answered, ‘It is you who say that I am a king. I was born for this, I came into the world for this, to bear witness to the truth; and all who are on the side of truth listen to my voice.’ - John, Chap. 18
To be sure, there are Truths outside of merely a quick look at their relation to our triune God. These Truths are objective. And, these Truths have been with us since the beginning of Time. In other words, they’ve been with us since they were created by God. The sphere; the cube; the rectangle; the square; beings of quantity; certain laws of physics; certain laws of chemistry; certain laws of descent and selection; and, the futurum exactum of an immediate event, to name some. To this list we can add the written words within the 73 books of the Bible. And, much of the conclusions of logic by such men as St.'s Thomas and Augustine, and others.
Truths are Truths even if denied. If one does not accept this, rationality is lost.
God bless,
jd
D
donsnow
Guest
Yes, I believe we can have a single definition for truth.
In His prayer in the garden, Jesus says to His Heavenly Father, “…your word is truth.”
So, I define truth as God’s word.
As far as the world is concerned and if there are those who reject God’s word as truth, nevertheless, His word remains the truth.
God loves you,
Don
In His prayer in the garden, Jesus says to His Heavenly Father, “…your word is truth.”
So, I define truth as God’s word.
As far as the world is concerned and if there are those who reject God’s word as truth, nevertheless, His word remains the truth.
God loves you,
Don
N
Neithan
Guest
postmodern society has reduced truth to fact. Facts pertain only to observable reality, but truth pertains to all reality. Truth transcends fact.
As in the above example, 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but it is not a fact unless you observe it as an event e.g “two apples are added to a basket with two apples which then has four apples.”
Ignoring this subtle but important distinction leads to the error of monism (that all reality is one substance), probably one of the most commonly held beliefs in the world today, by both eastern spiritualists (hindus, buddhists etc.) and western materialists (humanists, naturalists etc.)
Catholics reject monism as fundamentally erroneous. Spirit and matter cannot be reduced to either.
Truth is one, but reality is two: ‘seen and unseen.’
As in the above example, 2 + 2 = 4 is true, but it is not a fact unless you observe it as an event e.g “two apples are added to a basket with two apples which then has four apples.”
Ignoring this subtle but important distinction leads to the error of monism (that all reality is one substance), probably one of the most commonly held beliefs in the world today, by both eastern spiritualists (hindus, buddhists etc.) and western materialists (humanists, naturalists etc.)
Catholics reject monism as fundamentally erroneous. Spirit and matter cannot be reduced to either.
Truth is one, but reality is two: ‘seen and unseen.’
D
danserr
Guest
Not sure I fully understand you. A fact is a true proposition, whether it is observed or not. A fact must be true to be a fact. Or is your point just that a postmodernist would wrongly insist that facts aren’t facts unless we see them?
N
Neithan
Guest
A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation.
All facts are true, but not all truths are facts.
V
vmancha
Guest
Is there any relationship between what Wittgenstein called “state of affair” and a fact? If the answer is ‘yes’ what kind of relationship is it?
D
danserr
Guest
I believe you and I are using two different definitions of fact. I prefer the philsophical definition that a fact is simply a true proposition.
For instance, 2+2=4. You say this is not a fact unless observed about things. I am inclined to disagree and say that it is simply a fact because it is a true proposition. (and truth is the conformity of meaning to reality as Thomas Aquinas teaches).
N
Neithan
Guest
We’ve plunged into some heady semantics here
The distinction is more subtle in philosophy than [physical] science but it is still important: a fact is that to which a true proposition refers. A real ‘state of affairs.’ This must be Aquinas’ definition.
‘2 + 2 = 4’ is true, but it lacks the ontological content necessary to be a fact.
To simplify, we can look at the origin of the word: fact is from the Latin ‘factum,’ which means something done, happened, made; an event.
You’re right to point out that I was referring to those who reduce truth to scientific matters of fact (materialism/physicalism). But denying the distinction in philosophy also implies monism because it removes the requirement of an objective reality to which true propositions refer. It makes the realm of ideas identical with that of facts (idealism/spiritualism).
N
Neithan
Guest
That’s probably a deeper question than I’m qualified to answer.
I just borrowed his phrase to define fact: ‘a real state of affairs.’ !
EDIT: German for ‘fact’ - ‘Tatsache’ - is virtually a literal translation of this (‘actual affair/case of things’).
T
tonyrey
Guest
A fact cannot be false. It must therefore be true! But a “true fact” is a pleonasm (needless repetition). The origin of the term is the Latin “factum”, i.e. “that which is done”. In practice it is applied to anything which is true or real, such as situations and mental states as well as events. Criminal investigations and scientific research are concerned with the search for** unknown **facts.
The truth is composed of facts but facts are not composed of the truth! They are individual truths which may be misleading because they are only a part of **the **truth. That is why the definition of truth as “that which corresponds to reality” has to be supplemented by the coherence of the description or explanation. We need to be presented with “the **whole **truth and nothing but the truth”.
We can never know the whole truth, of course, but in many contexts we know enough of the truth to have sufficient knowledge for our purposes.
D
danserr
Guest
Heady semantics indeedWe’ve plunged into some heady semantics here
The distinction is more subtle in philosophy than [physical] science but it is still important: a fact is that to which a true proposition refers. A real ‘state of affairs.’ This must be Aquinas’ definition.
‘2 + 2 = 4’ is true, but it lacks the ontological content necessary to be a fact.
To simplify, we can look at the origin of the word: fact is from the Latin ‘factum,’ which means something done, happened, made; an event.
You’re right to point out that I was referring to those who reduce truth to scientific matters of fact (materialism/physicalism). But denying the distinction in philosophy also implies monism because it removes the requirement of an objective reality to which true propositions refer. It makes the realm of ideas identical with that of facts (idealism/spiritualism).
Does this view have an implausible consequence though?
I mean, you suggest that 2+2=4 can’t be a fact because it has no ontological content. But suppose mathematical realism is true, that is, numbers exist. Then the statement "2+2=4 would be a fact since numbers would exist and the statement would have ontological content, right? (or not? I am in over my head here)
On the other hand, if mathematical nominalism is true (numbers don’t exist), the statement would not have ontological significance.
-This means (assuming I have this right), that whether 2+2=4 is a fact or not turns on the question of whether mathematical realism or nominalism is true or not. But does that seem plausible?
In any case, if we simply say that a fact is a true proposition, then the proposition itself is the content that is either true or false (either it corresponds to reality or not).The “thing done (factum)” then, is simply the proposition.
I agree about the need to distinguish “truth” from “facts.” But it seems like this is already done by taking a fact to mean “a true proposition” and taking “truth” to mean "the correspondence of meaning to reality. I mean, if these definitions failed to make the distinction then calling a fact a “true proposition” would be redundant right?
At any rate, as I say, I’m in over my head here.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
It seems to me that you are the one that is correct here, since you correctly see that the truths of ontology and objectivity is not ultimately determined by physics, and not all real things are physical things. There are two kinds of truth. Contingent truths, and necessary truths. Necessary truths are never untrue or unreal. We come to knowledge of the necessary truth that 2+2 = 4 through physical representations, but that in no way shows us that truth is reducible to physical representations, since there could be no true representation if it wasn’t already a truth to begin with before the representation existed. There can be representations of truth only if there is a truth to represent We certainly needed physical representations to come to the knowledge of that necessary truth. For example we would never have known that 2+2=4 if we were not aware of quantitative examples to which we apply representational symbols. The fact that 2+2=4 is itself a transcendent necessary truth that will always be true regardless of whether or not we see examples of that truth in physical things. 2+2 equals 4 for a reason; and that reason cannot have an existential beginning; otherwise it would not be necessarily true. The reason that it is truth is because it reflects the underlying root nature of the reality into which representations and true statements become manifest. That nature is God. In other-words things are truth because of Gods perfect existential expression. Gods nature is the absolute antithesis of absolute nothingness. God is the absolute difference between real and unreal, and thus properly understood God is absolute truth, because God is the absolute reality upon which all other truths are based. Without reality there is no truth. Thus we find in Gods nature a perfect order of being which is the basis of all mathematical truths.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Here’s what he wrote in the Tractatus:
So yes, there’s a close relationship. A fact is an existing state of affairs, though a state of affairs is not per se a fact. It seems the significant difference would be that merely possible states of affairs (false propositions) don’t really exist, whereas factual states of affairs do. The formal relationship between a fact (truth-maker; real state of affairs in actuality) and a true proposition (truth-bearer; intentional state of affairs in potency) is that of isomorphism.
The fundamental differentia between truth and falsity seems to be the division of act and potency, or real and possible; their sameness is their being one and individual, their respective propositional unities.
J
JDaniel
Guest
The above is beautiful and nicely worded. However! - there are two things that might have been said differently. I have bolded them above. Instead of, “In other-words things are truth because of Gods perfect existential expression,” perhaps, “In other-words things are truth because of Gods perfect expression of the existential.” might have been more what you meant.
Then, the phrase, “Without reality there is no truth,” is somewhat problematic for me. Reality, as most people understand it, came to be when time came to be, when the universe came to be. But, Truth is the Eternal Word. It has existed always, as God has. Now, if you say, on the other hand, that God is Reality, then your statement makes sense. But, if reality had a beginning, then Truth would also have had a beginning.
I am sure you meant it that God is the ground of Reality.
God bless,
jd
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
Thanks for the suggestions.
I can see how that would look better.Physical reality came to be when the universe came to be.That in no way suggests that “reality” is a manifestation intrinsic to the universe. The universe is certainly participating in the act of reality, that is, the act of being real; but it is not reality itself. If it were by its own nature “reality”, then it would have always been real, existing timelessly without potential, since to be real is the intrinsic expression of reality.Only God is reality. When you proceed into existence this is synonymous to proceeding in to God just like the universe did. God is not a being out there some where, taking a nap, but rather he is the very being through which contingent entities are able to express themselves. However God is not to be identified with contingent things on the basis that he is reality. As paradoxical as it may seem, reality is never a contingent thing even though contingent things have an act of reality. There is a duality in “essence” between created things and God (our qualitative finite natures do not share the same essence as God), although not in esse because contingent things are real through the esse of God.We must share in Gods esse simply because contingent essences have no reality of their own. When God creates something, he does not create a new “esse”, he creates a new “essence”. As strange as this may sound, we are not actually “real”, if by that we mean we have our own reality; but rather we borough Gods reality (esse) in order to maintain the existence of our “essence”. It is by this fact that we can understand what people mean when they say that we are sustained in being by God and God alone. It is quite literally true, since we are real through Gods esse alone. Our existence is a finite analogous representation of Gods existence. We are a pale reflection of God.
As far as truth is concerned, I say that there is no truth without reality in order to emphasize the fact that a necessary truth is an expression of esse. It is truth because of esse. If you take away esse, then you take away the necessary truth that 2+2 = 4. But if that were possible it wouldn’t be a necessary truth, and thus that can’t happen, quite simply because there are at least some mathematical equations that contain necessary objective truths such as 2+2 =4. Therefore you cannot reduce necessary truth to physical instances or things that begin to exist.
Perhaps you can now see why i say that if there were no reality, or even if it were just a possibility, there could be no necessary truth, since if there were no God (a necessary timeless esse) there would be absolutely nothing, and in nothing there is no objective truth. Since there is no objective truth in nothing, it is absolutely impossible for it to be objectively true that absolutely nothing could be literally true. Therefore a necessary absolute perfect timeless truth or “esse” has to exist without change. It is impossible for God not to exist. This much i am absolutely certain of.
This argument is one of the objects of the book that i am struggling to write, which i will send to you soon.
Agreed. That is why i argue that true necessary reality is not synonymous with physical beings
As far as i can see it, things are real or true because God is reality.I am sure you meant it that God is the ground of Reality.
God bless,
jd
J
JDaniel
Guest
MoM:Thanks for the suggestions.
Physical reality came to be when the universe came to be.That in no way suggests that “reality” is a manifestation intrinsic to the universe. The universe is certainly participating in the act of reality, that is, the act of being real; but it is not reality itself. If it were by its own nature “reality”, then it would have always been real, existing timelessly without potential, since to be real is the intrinsic expression of reality.Only God is reality. When you proceed into existence this is synonymous to proceeding in to God just like the universe did. God is not a being out there some where, taking a nap, but rather he is the very being through which contingent entities are able to express themselves. However God is not to be identified with contingent things on the basis that he is reality. As paradoxical as it may seem, reality is never a contingent thing even though contingent things have an act of reality. There is a duality in “essence” between created things and God (our qualitative finite natures do not share the same essence as God), although not in esse because contingent things are real through the esse of God.We must share in Gods esse simply because contingent essences have no reality of their own. When God creates something, he does not create a new “esse”, he creates a new “essence”. As strange as this may sound, we are not actually “real”, if by that we mean we have our own reality; but rather we borough Gods reality (esse) in order to maintain the existence of our “essence”. It is by this fact that we can understand what people mean when they say that we are sustained in being by God and God alone. It is quite literally true, since we are real through Gods esse alone. Our existence is a finite analogous representation of Gods existence. We are a pale reflection of God.
As far as truth is concerned, I say that there is no truth without reality in order to emphasize the fact that a necessary truth is an expression of esse. It is truth because of esse. If you take away esse, then you take away the necessary truth that 2+2 = 4. But if that were possible it wouldn’t be a necessary truth, and thus that can’t happen, quite simply because there are at least some mathematical equations that contain necessary objective truths such as 2+2 =4. Therefore you cannot reduce necessary truth to physical instances or things that begin to exist.
Perhaps you can now see why i say that if there were no reality, or even if it were just a possibility, there could be no necessary truth, since if there were no God (a necessary timeless esse) there would be absolutely nothing, and in nothing there is no objective truth. Since there is no objective truth in nothing, it is absolutely impossible for it to be objectively true that absolutely nothing could be literally true. Therefore a necessary absolute perfect timeless truth or “esse” has to exist without change. It is impossible for God not to exist. This much i am absolutely certain of.
This argument is one of the objects of the book that i am struggling to write, which i will send to you soon.
Agreed. That is why i argue that true necessary reality is not synonymous with physical beings
As far as i can see it, things are real or true because God is reality.
I had to re-read this a couple of times to fully understand you. Pretty deep. I think you are absolutely correct when you say, “It is impossible for God not to exist.” That a chance quantum fluctuation seemingly occurred, without help, out there within the infinity and subsequently formed the finity from which the universe has flourished, is - in any sense - sheer non-sense.
I’m looking forward to the draft.
God bless you and your endeavor,
jd
- Status