Philosophical definition of Truth

[buffalo]

Truth can come from only the one who possesses full knowledge, that is absolute and complete truth, what we call God.

 

[JDaniel]

The occurence isn’t good, but if it is true that it happened, it is good to believe that it occured.

But, Leela, it is the occurance we are talking about, not the viewer of the occurance. You said that “truth is a species of good”. I answer that you are wrong.

Let’s take it a step further, let’s say I didn’t witness it, but, that it occured is true. And, let’s say that my only “proof” is that the murderer “thinks” I saw it and now is after me to murder me.

How is that Truth “good”?

jd

 

[Michael_David]

But, Leela, it is the occurance we are talking about, not the viewer of the occurance. You said that “truth is a species of good”. I answer that you are wrong.

jd

I believe that truth then has ‘value’… and value can be either morally ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In this instance, one has applied ‘morals’ to the ‘occurrence’… rather then the occurrence as simply viewed… without judgment.

 

[Leela]

But, Leela, it is the occurance we are talking about, not the viewer of the occurance. You said that “truth is a species of good”. I answer that you are wrong.

Let’s take it a step further, let’s say I didn’t witness it, but, that it occured is true. And, let’s say that my only “proof” is that the murderer “thinks” I saw it and now is after me to murder me.

How is that Truth “good”?

jd

That truth is not good. That occurence is not a good thing to have happened, but if it is true that it has happened, then it is good to believe that it has happened. To say that some statement is true is to say that it is good to believe that statement. It doesn’t mean that the statement or fact is good, only good to believe.

 

[JDaniel]

Some ideas in the above and in other posts in this thread may be made more clear if we apply Plato’s definition of knowledge as justified true belief. So we have three pieces to the puzzle of knowledge: justification, truth, and belief.

First of all, it is a belief that we are calling true or not. A rock is neither true nor false, but we can express beliefs about the rock that are either true or false.

To be able to say that we know something, what we believe must be true. We can’t say “JD knows that person A murdered person B” unless this really happened. We can’t say “Sam knows that the first president was Brad Pitt” but we can say that Sam believes that the first president was Brad Pitt. His belief is not a true one, of course, but the question of whether or not we have knowledge only applies to beliefs.

In addition to distinguishing belief, truth, and knowledge, we need to see that justification is also important in our definition of knowledge. If you flip a coin and I call “heads” and it happens to come up “heads” I can’t say that I knew it would. I just guessed right. My belief that it would come up “heads” was not justified.

So when we say that we know something, we mean that we are justified in holding our belief, and what we believe is true.

And I still think that “agreement with reality” (without getting into the nitty-gritty of what reality is and what agreement is supposed to be like) is all that we need and as philosphically interesting as we can hope to be when we talk about truth. (That is to say that saying anything more about truth will not help us to say any more true things.)

Best,
Leela

Precisely why should I hold that anything you have said hereinabove is True?

jd

 

[Leela]

Precisely why should I hold that anything you have said hereinabove is True?

Either I’ve justified what I said to your satisfaction or not. If you find it well-justified, then you will believe what I’ve said. If you don’t, then you won’t.

???

What are you trying to get at here?

 

[JDaniel]

That truth is not good. That occurence is not a good thing to have happened

Thus, for at least this Truth, this Truth is not a Truth that is a species of Good. I wonder how many more of these I can come up with? Hmmm?

. . . but if it is true that it has happened, then it is good to believe that it has happened.

This Truth (factical) is a second occurance, not essentially, but only, accidentally related to to the first Truth (factical). You are confusing the two as being two essential parts of one factical.

To say that some statement is true is to say that it is good to believe that statement. It doesn’t mean that the statement or fact is good, only good to believe.

Sorry, Leela, but, that doesn’t work to enhance Truth with Good - unless, you misunderstand what Good actually is. I am not saying that “some statement is true.” I am saying that the factical is True. Period.

jd

 

[Leela]

Thus, for at least this Truth, this Truth is not a Truth that is a species of Good. I wonder how many more of these I can come up with? Hmmm?

I’m sure that you could keep missing the point all day long if you try.

This Truth (factical) is a second occurance, not essentially, but only, accidentally related to to the first Truth (factical). You are confusing the two as being two essential parts of one factical.

As I tried to correct you in an earlier post without specifically addressing you, it doesn’t make any sense to call a rock true. We would only call statements that we make about the rock true or false.

Likewise, “person A murders person B” in your example, as a hypothetical event, is neither true nor false. But whether or not it actually happened is a question whose answers may be true or false.

Sorry, Leela, but, that doesn’t work to enhance Truth with Good - unless, you misunderstand what Good actually is.

I’m not trying to enhance truth in any way. My point has been that there is nothing very interesting to say about truth. What I am saying is that truth is a type of good.

Pragmatists like myself have no use for Good as an essence. Good is always understood relative to some purpose. When our purpose is good behavior we use moral and evil to talk about good and bad. When our purpose is to talk about good physical health, we use the words “well” and “sick” or “pleasure” and “pain.” When our purpose is to make good claims, we use the word “true” to describe the sort of good we are talking about.

I am not saying that “some statement is true.” I am saying that the factical is True. Period.

And I’m saying that this is a category error like saying a rock is true or that a blade of grass is false. It is only such a statement as “this blade of grass is green” that we could call true or false. Truth is a property of sentences, not of blades of grass.

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

I’m sure that you could keep missing the point all day long if you try.

Leela, I’m not the one “missing the point”. You are.

As I tried to correct you in an earlier post without specifically addressing you, it doesn’t make any sense to call a rock true. We would only call statements that we make about the rock true or false.

This so absurd as to be the epitime of absurdity. If a bird flies over my head and I see it - but, no one else does - then your Truth is only true for me. Nevertheless, the brute fact was true and it remains the Truth. It matters not whether another person saw the bird or not. It matters not whether any valuations were made as to its truthfulness or not. It even matters not whether or not I saw it. Can’t you see that? Substitute “bird” for “rock”. Substitute stepping over “the rock” with “flying over head”.

Furthermore, in this case, my “statements” about it are essentially meaningless to everyone else. I can, thereby, make any claims I want to. People can either believe them to be true or not, at their whim. Thus, we would have no conversations, books, lectures, etc., that would result in imparting certainty or Truth or even True in and of themselves (except for the future perfect tense statement). The interlocutions of human beings would be senseless exercises in futility, and merely ways of expending energy, thereby promoting more entropy.

Likewise, “person A murders person B” in your example, as a hypothetical event, is neither true nor false. But whether or not it actually happened is a question whose answers may be true or false.

Where on earth (or in my statements) did I refer to the occurance as “hypothetical”? Again, my statement of proposition is what is hypothetical. The occurance described is to be understood as non-hypothetical.

I’m not trying to enhance truth in any way. My point has been that there is nothing very interesting to say about truth. What I am saying is that truth is a type of good.

I absolutey, totally disagree with your above statement. As I have proved above, Truth can be as simple as a Brute Fact.

Pragmatists like myself have no use for Good as an essence. Good is always understood relative to some purpose. When our purpose is good behavior we use moral and evil to talk about good and bad. When our purpose is to talk about good physical health, we use the words “well” and “sick” or “pleasure” and “pain.” When our purpose is to make good claims, we use the word “true” to describe the sort of good we are talking about.

Why are you spending time developing this soliloquy? This appears to be a peculiar quirk of yours, to go on and on about things unrelated to the subject at hand, in order to appear more professorial. It does not help your argument an iota.

And I’m saying that this is a category error like saying a rock is true or that a blade of grass is false. It is only such a statement as “this blade of grass is green” that we could call true or false. Truth is a property of sentences, not of blades of grass.

And, that is exactly wherein your conception of the “true” is in error. Here, all this time, I thought you were a realist. Now, I find out you are, in fact, an idealist.

jd

 

[Leela]

This so absurd as to be the epitime of absurdity. If a bird flies over my head and I see it - but, no one else does - then your Truth is only true for me.

That is not at all what I am saying. Truth is truth. It doesn’t make sense to talk about two different people holding contradictory truths.

Nevertheless, the brute fact was true and it remains the Truth. It matters not whether another person saw the bird or not. It matters not whether any valuations were made as to its truthfulness or not. It even matters not whether or not I saw it. Can’t you see that? Substitute “bird” for “rock”. Substitute stepping over “the rock” with “flying over head”.

Again, this argument has nothing to do with what I said. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make sense to point to a bird and say “that bird is true.” That would be a category error. What would make sense is to say, “that is a bird” is a true sentence (if in fact you are pointing to a bird).

Truth is a property of sentences, not of birds.

Where on earth (or in my statements) did I refer to the occurance as “hypothetical”? Again, my statement of proposition is what is hypothetical. The occurance described is to be understood as non-hypothetical.

“Person A murders person B” is a hypothetical occurrence whether you call it that or not.

Why are you spending time developing this soliloquy? This appears to be a peculiar quirk of yours, to go on and on about things unrelated to the subject at hand, in order to appear more professorial. It does not help your argument an iota.

Always a pleasure…

Best,
Leela

 

[JDaniel]

That is not at all what I am saying. Truth is truth. It doesn’t make sense to talk about two different people holding contradictory truths.

I have not said that there are multiple people “holding contradictory truths”. What I said was that you and I hold contradictory ideas of what “truth” is. And, under your definition, that a bird flew over my head could never be true for anyone except me.

Again, this argument has nothing to do with what I said. I’m just saying that it doesn’t make sense to point to a bird and say “that bird is true.”

It does “make sense to point to a bird and say ‘that bird is true.’” That the bird exists is value proposition enough to extoll the verisimilitude of the creature. It does not have to be part of a sentence of value in order to be true. It is true because it exists.

That would be a category error.

Please define this.

What would make sense is to say, “that is a bird” is a true sentence (if in fact you are pointing to a bird).

Incorrecto mundo.

Truth is a property of sentences, not of birds.

Again, incorrecto mundo.

“Person A murders person B” is a hypothetical occurrence whether you call it that or not.

Whether I call it that or not has everything to do with it: I intend it to be non-hypotherical.

Always a pleasure…

Likewise.

jd

 

[chevalier]

Leela, what you say is true but doesn’t affect the definition of truth. At least the truth we seem to be talking about.

Interestingly, from a really Christian standpoint, we must say God is Truth, meaning Truth is a person. This puts an end to our theories…

However, for purposes such as logic or science, we can stick with conformity of mind and matter, as Aquinas did.

 

[Leela]

I have not said that there are multiple people “holding contradictory truths”. What I said was that you and I hold contradictory ideas of what “truth” is. And, under your definition, that a bird flew over my head could never be true for anyone except me.

That is not at all what I am saying. Truth is truth. It doesn’t make sense to talk about two different people holding contradictory truths. The only definition I’ve given for truth is the traditional philosophical starting point, “agreement with reality.” I’ve also said that truth only applies to sentences and that true is teh species of good that we use when we want to describe a sentence as good to believe.

It does “make sense to point to a bird and say ‘that bird is true.’”

I’ve never heard of anyone doing anything like that. It’s simply not the way the word “true” is used. Saying “that bird is true” ammounts to saying “that bird agrees with reality” while the bird is actually part of reality not a description that needs to agree with reality.

The only example that comes close is when Christians say “Jesus is Truth” which also makes no sense with the ordinary usage of the word, truth, but I guess it’s nice poetry for Christians.

Best,
Leela

 

[duckbill]

Truth cannot mean the same thing as Reality. For a thing to be true, or the truth, it must go through a process of evaluation. That process cannot be performed on a level lower than human. Lower animals can know that a thing is (Reality), and avoid, or step around it, or chase it, or eat it, but, cannot evaluate it for any sort of validness (Truth).

Your friend’s definition is way too simplistic. Think of a mirage. As a phenomenon describable and evaluated by science, it does conform to a “mirage”, and is, therefore, true as mirage. But, as a phenomenon evaluated and described as “water”, it is not true. In this case, it is real yet not true. Truth does not mean Reality.

jd

This is not true
Reality has to encompass the subjective perspective as well as the objective perspective. The mirage is a real idea otherwise we couldn’t talk about it or even have a definition of it. It exist in her/his mind but it doesn’t conform to the objective perspective. But that thought still exists in her/his mind even though mistaken by another criteria.

I didn’t like spinach as child was a real dislike but subjective. I really didn’t like it. You couldn’t prove me wrong. Wouldn’t you have to accept it as true/ real for me ?

 

[JDaniel]

This is not true
Reality has to encompass the subjective perspective as well as the objective perspective. The mirage is a real idea otherwise we couldn’t talk about it or even have a definition of it. It exist in her/his mind but it doesn’t conform to the objective perspective. But that thought still exists in her/his mind even though mistaken by another criteria.

You have just proven my position! :clapping:

You are disallowing the stand-alone truth of “objective truth”. We are, after all, talking about truth, are we not. Thus, that which is held in the mind through mistaken criteria, is, by definition, not-truth.

Some truths require subjective reasoning, but, clearly, not ALL truths. If I communicate that a “bird just flew over head,” and I was the only conscious mind to witness the occurrence, the occurrence would not only be objectively true, but also, subjectively true.

I didn’t like spinach as child was a real dislike but subjective. I really didn’t like it. You couldn’t prove me wrong. Wouldn’t you have to accept it as true/ real for me ?

Of course, but, as your parent, I would have made you eat it anyway! :extrahappy:

jd

 

[duckbill]

You have just proven my position! :clapping:

You are disallowing the stand-alone truth of “objective truth”. We are, after all, talking about truth, are we not. Thus, that which is held in the mind through mistaken criteria, is, by definition, not-truth.

Some truths require subjective reasoning, but, clearly, not ALL truths. If I communicate that a “bird just flew over head,” and I was the only conscious mind to witness the occurrence, the occurrence would not only be objectively true, but also, subjectively true.

Of course, but, as your parent, I would have made you eat it anyway! :extrahappy:

jd

So you are saying that subjective ideas don’t exist?

 

[joemccarron]

One theory of truth is the correspondence theory which says that a statement is true if it correctly corresponds with reality. For example, to say that “the cat is on the mat” corresponds with reality if there is a cat, there is a mat, and the cat is on the mat. Where such a theory run into trouble is with such statements as “it is a pretty cat” or “it is a good cat.” Values make would no sense if we expected such statements to correspond with some aspect of reality. What does "pretty or “good” correspond to? Also, statements like, “there exist uncountable infinities” and “there is no such thing as a crocophant” are problematic.

Many people believe in objective values. Accordingly if I said “It was wrong to kill Jews the way Hitler did.” this would be a true statement in that it does indeed accord with reality. These people are moral realists. I’m one of them.

Others think values have no real objective truth. There are several different branches - nihilists (moral skeptics) - relativists - and one such branch of thinkers are non-cognitivists. They would interpret what I said as “boo! holocaust!” or “Boo Hitler” Now “Boo Hitler!” is not really a true or false statement. It’s more of an emotive utterance. They think all moral talk is really just emotive utterances like that.

I would think most people are realists when it comes to morals but not when it comes to culinary tastes. So when my wife says she doesn’t like pickles I don’t seriously try to show the errors of her ways.

Good corresponds to reality if it is structured in such a way such that the trait “good” applies to what you describe. Just like how yellowness applies to some things.

 

[joemccarron]

In case it wasn’t clear I think that a proposition is true if and only if it corresponds with reality.

 

[duckbill]

The traditional Aristotelian/Scholastic definition of truth is as follows:

Truth- the known conformity of what is in the mind and what is outside the mind (logical); the agreement of a being with the intellect (ontological)

One of my friends says that is wrong, the definition of truth is simpler…Truth=Reality.

Any comments?

Your friend is pointing out that Knowledge-- is is corresponding the mind to reality.

If: Truth- is conformity of the mind to reality

Lets try it by replacing some words.

A) Jesus-- is conformity of the mind to reality

B) God-- is conformity of the mind to reality

or

C) Knowledge is conformity of the mind to Jesus

D)Knowledge is conformity of the mind to God

Which of these statements seems to make the most sense?

 

[Leela]

Many people believe in objective values. Accordingly if I said “It was wrong to kill Jews the way Hitler did.” this would be a true statement in that it does indeed accord with reality. These people are moral realists. I’m one of them.

Others think values have no real objective truth. There are several different branches - nihilists (moral skeptics) - relativists - and one such branch of thinkers are non-cognitivists. They would interpret what I said as “boo! holocaust!” or “Boo Hitler” Now “Boo Hitler!” is not really a true or false statement. It’s more of an emotive utterance. They think all moral talk is really just emotive utterances like that.

I am a moral realist as well.

I would think most people are realists when it comes to morals but not when it comes to culinary tastes. So when my wife says she doesn’t like pickles I don’t seriously try to show the errors of her ways.

I think food is a good analogy for morality. Some foods may be just as good for people as others, but we can all agree that poisin is bad for people.

Good corresponds to reality if it is structured in such a way such that the trait “good” applies to what you describe. Just like how yellowness applies to some things.

That’s not exactly what a correspondence theory of truth claims about the meaning of the truth of a sentence. “The cat is good” corresponds to reality if the cat exists, if good exists, and the cat is good. Before you could ask whether the trait “good” applies to the cat, you’d have to say what aspect of reality is “good” supposed to correspond to? We would have to believe that an essence called Good (God?) exists in some way.

Pragmatists point out that we don’t even need to deal with this problem of trying to get our words to correspond with reality when language is viewed as a tool for coping with reality. Sentences may correspond to reality, but they don’t need to in order to be said to be true in that they may lead us in the human projects they were created to solve anymore than a hammer needs to correspond to reality to accomplish the projects that hammers were created to solve. Sentences need to “agree with reality” in some sense to be said to be true, but that agreement may or may not be a one-to-one correspondence between words and specific essences contained in reality. If we try to create such correspondences we wind up with a whole collection of Platonic essences of Good, Truth, Beauty, etc. and end up “doubling the number of things” as Aristotle complained.

Best,
Leela