To maintain that there is no truth is self-contradictory, for if our contention were itself true, there would be truth. — Russell, The Philosophy of Leibniz, §110.

Extreme brain in a vat — Andrew4Handel

For me the brain in vat argument is rather non-workable and fallacious.

For me it's like saying what if you had a "boat" (brain) except the boat is made of lead and also has loads of holes in it and doesn't float at all (not fit for purpose/doesn't have much of any qualities of a boat), in itheriwrds a brain that doesn't "brain" . It never floated from the get go and never could transport passengers but is say "boat shaped" sitting at the bottom of the sea.

This is not consistent argument.

I would say in that case well it's not a boat then is it? Just as I would say a brain in a vat with no body, and only a one way sensory input with no control over a body and no ability to interact or impose on its environment, in other words no ability to express agency/autonomy, is not a brain at all.

It's something in a vat, defined as a brain without characterising much of any of its qualities within that definition.

I feel that somethings are undeniably true and preserving the truth is valuable and that we rely on truths to negotiate life and I see no value in a kind of "anything goes interpretive relativism — Andrew4Handel

Well for me there is truth ofc. And it is valuable as it is how reality truly is and truly works.

Having said that, I also believe" anything goes interpretative relativism" must exist as a neccesary compliment to the truth ie. "that which is relative to the absolute. That which fills the spectrum of uncertainty (0.00-0.999') with the truth being 1 - absolute certainty.

Relativism is imagination, pondering, postulations, beliefs, biases and all that is arbitrary and assigned either for convenience or because it works in finite restricted parameters - temporary. The truth however always works, everywhere, all at once. Despite what we relatively dream up about it.

The truth includes falsity. As falsity, delusion and fallacy also exist (are true). They're just not as permanent, unchanging and fundamental as truth. They cannot supercede what underlies them.

If some things are not true, never were true, nor ever will be true, and some things were true, but no longer are, and some things were never true, are not true but will be true, then it stands to reason these are "partial truths" of the universe, dependent on temporality/time or "context".

It also stands to reason then that if some things are more true, more permanent and applicable to a larger time frame, then there is one absolute fundamental truth that is consistent at all times. And is even more fundamental than time itself, because whilst time is part of the truth (it exists as a phenomenon) that is not to say that absolute truth is dependent on time, because if it was, it would change, it would not be absolute.

For me the brain in vat argument is rather non-workable and fallacious. — Benj96

To me, it's always just seemed unimaginably cruel.

It helps keep things straight in one's mind to refrain from stuffing too much meaning into one little word.
There are communications - in whatever language - that convey information. These may be factual, instructional, deceitful, inaccurate, emotional, invented for entertainment, etc.
There are statements intended to be believed, that either convey information regarding specific subject matter or more general principles and concepts. These may be true - within situational constraints - or false, or distorted or mistaken.
There are testable, verifiable facts - which may be situational or general.
We are not equipped to evaluate anything for universal, eternal or absolute truth.

You could look at it like this.

Every moment or so we are faced with information in our experiences and have to decide what to do with it.

So the requirement for truth in this scenario is to be able to act on some basis, to be motivated to make reasoned decisions.

But we don't have to question everything all at once to act. We probably have a distinct manageable set of input to assess the truth of.

we live in societies with ongoing shifting narratives, values and paradigms we need to assess. — Andrew4Handel

I think this is a good take and works as a strong starting framework for how to view truth. I'd add a few things. Even if something is true, that doesn't mean that incorporating it into your decision-making is pragmatic. One must carefully select the inputs to be used in their perspective. It's very easy to make a logical argument using true premises that result in an undesirable outcome. The pros and cons of a perspective and the relevant outcomes are crucial.

Also, a perspective should be viewed as dependent upon the context and defined by the context in which it was given or formed. For example, even if there were "moral truths", they are formed within the context of moral philosophy. Arguing that something is of personal benefit to you doesn't work as moral justification, but it could be personally compelling. You could recognise that an act is morally wrong but personally beneficial, by including/excluding different truths and prioritising, interpreting and narrativizing accordingly. As for which perspective should be prioritised, there is no truth value to that, it's a choice.

By focusing on the truths you care about, you can construe another's actions as indifference towards the truth, but that's probably not what it is. They are just working with different truths, and arranging these truths in a specific fashion, to arrive at their perspective.

You could say that there was a hierarchy of truth.

I believe that fundamental truths about reality would be valuable to all in terms of a framework for acting.

From truths about what harms us such as drowning or falling from a height. To truths about politics,how to do heart surgery and the fairest and optimal way to run a society. There could be metaphysical truths about the meaning or meaninglessness of life.

As someone who grew up in a severe branch of the Plymouth Brethren, that has made me value the truth. We had to read a chapter of the bible and pray every morning and pray before bed time.

Sometimes we went to church 5 times a week. Sunday morning breaking of bread, Sunday evening gospel meeting. Every other Saturday ministry and an open air gospel meeting where we stood on a street while the elders preached (via shouting) to the public.
(I found that embarrassing as a socially anxious person). Prayer meeting Tuesday evening and bible readings on Thursday and on Friday at another church. (The only other sanctioned local Plymouth Brethren Church 20+ miles away.)

We weren't allowed to watch television, women couldn't speak in church meetings, women couldn't cut or style their hair. We weren't allowed to listen to the radio as well because a leader in the brethren hierarchy had declared that kind of thing a tool of the devil.
We were not allowed to shop on sunday and when I did on one occasion my mother blew a fuse and refused to wrap up my birthday presents for the next day and was upset the whole next day.

This Church like however many others believed in biblical inerrancy which is totally unsupported and biblical contradictions and inconsistencies have been recognised for centuries. It was also a" hell and damnation" sermon every sunday and waiting for the end times. And if you questioned any of this you got anger so you didn't bother.

I feel that this was all abusive and a profound waste of my time and after leaving at 17 and rejecting their bogus morality it made me suspicious of any unsupported/unjustified moral claims.

But did they or do they really believe it or was it an entirely faith or fear based belief, or a mixture of social control, fearmongering, hope and conformity etc?

To my mind that level of indoctrination warrants someone to put a very high value on the truth including for one's own sanity.

Kudos for your honesty in saying that, and for your courage. Something I often reflect on is the tragedy of mistaken religiosity. It happens in every culture, any religion can become a tool of imprisonment as much as of liberation.

As to your question, ‘did they really believe?’ Belief and the desire to believe can be very dangerous, easily manipulated and exploited. But, as Alan Watts said, faith is not clinging, faith is the confidence to let go, the courage to know that you don’t know, and to find the truth in unknowing rather than clinging. None of which is against the spirit, so to speak, but might well be against many ideas of religion.

I used to ask, when an undergraduate, 'what happened to Capital-T Truth?' I meant, Truth as it is invoked in sermons and in soaring political rhetoric and which, it was assumed, science was always in the process of converging on. But I soon worked out that Capital T truth is a romantic notion. We live in a pluralistic culture, one in which the assertion of a capital-T truth is invariably met with 'according to whom?'

I think scientists, and people generally, are occupied with what is true in specific contexts and for particular ends - what works, what is a valid assumption and what is not. Truth is like the background of their activities, something which they are always seeking to approximate, but which may never be definitively proven except in respect of specifics. So - I think the upshot is that truth is valued very highly, but that reference to “The Truth” carries a lot of baggage (at least some of which you might have brought with you, pardon me for so saying.)

You could say that there was a hierarchy of truth. — Andrew4Handel

There is, but it’s very non-PC to say it. Because every vote is equal, we’re inclined to say that so are all opinions. Of course everyone has a right to their opinion, but no-one, as a wise elder once said, has a right to their own facts - and not everything is a matter of opinion. And truth is often not something easy to face. Sometimes the facing of a truth can take suffering and sacrifice, we’re dragged to it against our will and wants. That is where the lessons of religion are supposed to count.

As to your question, ‘did they really believe?’ Belief and the desire to believe can be very dangerous, easily manipulated and exploited. — Wayfarer

So the answer to @Andrew4Handel 's question is more like one of the "or" options, such as social control, rather than an answer of whether or not they really believed. The actual beliefs which were behind the behaviour were hidden, and the behaviour of the adults in the scenario was intended manipulate.

The child is born with the "desire to believe", and this cannot be properly represented as the "tabula rasa" because something has to support this capacity the capacity to actually believe. If we represent the belief as what is learned, then the belief itself a type of capacity, as the potential to act in a certain way. But the innate aspect, what the child is born with, is also a capacity, therefore of the same category. That makes any type of theoretical separation of the belief from the underlying support of the belief very difficult, vague, and to a degree arbitrary.

The desire to believe therefore, is also the capacity to be manipulated, as teaching is an act of manipulation. The teaching process is very clearly a process of manipulation. What role does "Truth" play in this process? One might argue, that if the teacher is honest, and what is taught is a "true" representation of what the teacher believes, then there is truth within that process. However, I would argue that upon analysis this would be exposed as mere justification, and not really Truth at all because the teacher might still hold false beliefs which are being honestly, and justifiably the beliefs which are taught.

So I propose that we must turn to the position of the student in this process of teaching, to be able to find the real role of "Truth" here. This is the underlying capacity to learn, the "desire to believe", what the student is born with. The teacher brings to the table various capacities to act, which are that which will be taught, as beliefs, and these capacity are justified by the social environment, or context of the teaching act. The student brings to the table the capacity to learn, as a predisposition. Truth is within this predisposition, the "desire to believe". It is of the highest value to the teachers because without it their efforts will be fruitless. Whether or not it is of high value to the student is another question, because I have represented it as the capacity to be manipulated.

The child is born with the "desire to believe", and this cannot be properly represented as the "tabula rasa" because something has to support this capacity the capacity to actually believe. — Metaphysician Undercover

It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world. It must be able to rely on the consistency and continuity of the information in order to keep living. In order to live in a society, it must also learn the mores and expectations of that society, so it becomes necessary to believe what its care-givers teach it about the rules and customs.
What a child is taught may be non-factual, but it's more likely to be able to function in an intact world-view constructed of facts, misconceptions and fictions than a random scattering of pure facts.

As someone who grew up in a severe branch of the Plymouth Brethren, that has made me value the truth. — Andrew4Handel

But did they or do they really believe it or was it an entirely faith or fear based belief, or a mixture of social control, fearmongering, hope and conformity etc?

To my mind that level of indoctrination warrants someone to put a very high value on the truth including for one's own sanity. — Andrew4Handel

I too value truth highly, and for the same reason.

But it seems to me that the Plymouth Brethren also value truth highly. They think they have found the truth in the Bible, and do their best to live by it. In fact, I venture to say that despite much that has been said here, everyone values the truth. What would be the point of making an enquiry or attempting to respond to one if one did not value the truth? A billion doubloons or a sack of rotting fish heads.

The difficulty is though that we are not terribly good at getting hold of the truth, and some folks settle on the Book, and hold to that, and some folks affect indifference and think it sophisticated, and some few of us are continually looking for truth and poking at what we find wondering if it is the real thing or not. One learns to be cautious, anxious, and somewhat provisional in one's claims, because one sees that it is easy and comfortable to suppose one is rich in truth, when one is rather poor. This is a little bit I've got hold of, and I think it's about right. Give it a poke and see what you think.

We are not equipped to evaluate anything for universal, eternal or absolute truth. — Vera Mont

Well, it is indeed certain that we cannot establish all truths, at all moments in time, everywhere, all at once. For that, we would have to be everywhere, at all times, all at once to measure and establish such truths in the constant change and permutation of the system.

But reality, luckily for us, has innate consistency imbedded within it. A consistency that we can follow/track, and it makes sense to us. Through intuition, reasoning and logic. A consistency that governs why we are here in the first place - the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, society and consciousness and diversity that evolved from it.

So there seems to be a uniting reason for the occurence and behaviour of all things. A reasoning or consistency or truth more fundamental than the rest that binds all things yet one we do not fully know nor uderstand yet.

But that permeating sense, or logic, is how we have been able to apply our senses to the world, or generate technology to sense/detect that which we cannot.

The complexity of the system we exist in is profound. But complexity is on a spectrum, is one pole, the other being simplicity, or singular principle.

This state allows us to delve into and ascertain things that are long gone (the past) as well as make algorithms and predictive formulas for those yet to come. Insights into how basic rules determine where we came from, as well as where we are going.

Thus, there is immense knowledge to be had. We need only pursue it, with our logic, a logic that precedes us and stretches beyond us.

It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world. — Vera Mont

I think this opinion is wrong. The desire to believe, to know, and understand, is not based in what is needed to survive. Simple single-celled organism seem to survive very well, without that desire. Therefore it is incorrect to say that survival requires a mental model of the world. So, we must conclude that the desire to make a mental model of the world is driven by some other intention, rather than the will to survive.

Others have suggested that the intent involved here is the will to "flourish", and this implies growth. But this still does not account for the reality of a fundamental capacity of living things, which is the ability of self-movement. The desire to move, to go places, cannot be accounted for by the will to flourish, just like the desire to know cannot be accounted for by the will to survive. Furthermore, the desire to reproduce is distinct from all of these. So common evolutionary theories have a lot of problems to work out.

Simple single-celled organism seem to survive very well, without that desire. — Metaphysician Undercover

How did the brain evolve to its present complexity? Where did it begin?

Therefore it is incorrect to say that survival requires a mental model of the world — Metaphysician Undercover

I don't think a human baby would live very long outside the womb if all it had was the ability to sense heat, light and plankton.

The mother takes care of the baby. There is no need for the baby to have a mental model of the world to survive.

The mother takes care of the baby. There is no need for the baby to have a mental model of the world to survive. — Metaphysician Undercover

I suppose not, if the mother keeps taking care of it into reproductive age and beyond. But how does the mother know to navigate the world to give her child all the things it needs?

I am finding it hard to say where truth resides.

At the moment I am thinking it must be a mental state and an appraisal of the correctness of that mental state where a belief is either correct or inaccurate although I can't clarify what a belief is other than a type of mental state or mental attitude.

But this position does seem to slide towards idealism where we can only reflect on mental states.

I feel like the truth is a state of affairs where a mental state happens to be an accurate representation of the external world. But we can never be sure that these to things correspond. I feel like the truth in a sentence and even any meaning in a sentence must be in the mind or head.

I feel like the truth could be whatever is the case. Maybe just whatever exists. A search for the truth could be an attempt to live and act authentically.

I think a lie could be called inaccuracy, deliberate inaccuracy, propaganda, misinformation misrepresentation all of which have a les metaphysical feel to them.

It's a survival machine. In order to survive, it [a brain] requires information; it must construct a mental model of its world.
— Vera Mont

I think this opinion is wrong. The desire to believe, to know, and understand, is not based in what is needed to survive. — Metaphysician Undercover

:lol:

I am finding it hard to say where truth resides. — Andrew4Handel

See if this helps.

It's statements that are true or false.

Being true is what statements are used for, in the main. We understand what it is for a statement to be true by making use of statements.

The difference between belief and truth might be made apparent by considering an example. "The cat is on the mat" will be true only if the cat is on the mat. It is in this case irrelevant who is aware that the cat is or isn't on the mat. The cat is either on the mat or not, regardless of the attitudes that any particular person has towards the cat and the mat. So that someone, anyone, knows that the cat is on the mat does not change the truth of "The cat is on the mat". The cat might be on the mat without anyone knowing. Same goes for believing, disbelieving, accepting, learning, rejecting doubting or wondering if, the cat is on the mat. These are examples of attitudes one might have towards the cat's being on the mat.

The difference can be set out by giving some consideration to the logical structures involved. Truth relates to a sentence:

It is true that: the cat is on the mat

No person is mentioned here. But for attitudes, one includes who it is that has the attitude:

Ann believes that: the cat is on the mat
Ben knows that: the cat is on the mat
Cam doubts that: the cat is on the mat

While truth relates only to a sentence, these examples relate a sentence to persons. They are commonly called proposition attitudes, since they set out the attitude of a person towards a sentence.

Truth is not a propositional attitude. Truth resides in statements, not in minds.

There's a bunch of confusions, that other folk will express, that appear to go against this view, leaning towards idealism or antirealism. Discussing those could easily get your thread another twenty pages. But what I've set out above is far and away the better account, and is pretty well accepted outside forums such as this.

It's statements that are true or false. — Banno

I think that a statement like "Matt is taller than Oliver" is meaningful but becomes true in a context where it refers to a Matt that is taller than Oliver

But it is false in a situation where it refers to an Oliver who is taller than a Matt.
So a statement seems to be only true in certain context and it could accidentally be true such as if you say "It will rain of Friday" and it happens to rain on Friday and False if the predication was wrong..

The cat is either on the mat or not, regardless of the attitudes that any particular person has towards the cat and the mat. — Banno

This seems like we are saying that something exists regardless of our evaluation which I agree with but it doesn't seem to capture concept of truth.

I feel that truth seems to require a mental state where we have a belief and the belief is not false. I don't think language and written statements can mean anything outside of our minds ability to interpret symbols.

I feel like we care about the truth for psychological reasons but not always and not when the truth seems to sabotage us (which links into the selective skepticism topic)

I am not opposed to idealism but I don't know what the implication of a reality that is mind based would be. But some things like pain, language, music, mathematics and beliefs and thoughts seem to be entirely mind dependent.

Sure, truth and meaning are closely involved with each other. Still, it is statements that are true or false, and belief is quite different from truth, for the reasons given.

A note on method. One approach to philosophical issues involves asking a complex problem and breaking it down into it's component parts, seeking to understand each of those and then putting the pieces back together to solve the bigger problem. It was perhaps first explicated by Descartes.

So here that approach would involve seeing what we can work out about truth, belief and meaning, including their parts and how they relate to each other, and then trying to put them together in a larger explanation.

The alternative might be trying to understand the whole problem in total, without separating the various parts. That approach is fraught with circular arguments and misguided assumption.

and belief is quite different from truth, for the reasons given. — Banno

I am saying that it is the belief that is true or false not that they are the same thing.

A statement only seems to be true after it has been understood and in a context.

I don't see how a written sentence can convey anything without a mind. But I think the actual nature of reality cannot depend on notions like truth or falsity but just is.

It seems to me like conscious states provide us with detailed information that can be translated into ideas that don't need to have truth value but some times accurately map onto a state of the world.

I am saying that it is the belief that is true or false not that they are the same thing. — Andrew4Handel

And not sentences? I don't see how that could work.

A statement only seems to be true after it has been understood and in a context. — Andrew4Handel

Of course.

I don't see how a written sentence can convey anything without a mind — Andrew4Handel

Sure.

But I think the actual nature of reality cannot depend on notions like truth or falsity but just is. — Andrew4Handel

If you mean that all facts are true - well, yes.

It seems to me like conscious states provide us with detailed information that can be translated into ideas that don't need to have truth value but some times accurately map onto a state of the world. — Andrew4Handel

"Map onto a state of the world". So the world has states, that can be stated... in statements.

Did you think something here would be in disagreement with what I said? What?

We know that folk sometimes believe stuff that is false. And folk sometimes disbelieve stuff that is false, in which case they have a true belief...

If we cannot define truth can we defend it?

Some people believe that the truth always comes out eventually. But does it? Probably not. (Unsolved murders and so on.) Conspiracy theories run rampant vying for attention and the idea of a post-truth society.

But reality, luckily for us, has innate consistency imbedded within it. A consistency that we can follow/track, and it makes sense to us. — Benj96

Cannot illusions can be consistent? Some illusions like The uneven lines and bent stick in water illusions persist consistently. I think modern technologies including the internet and interface technology has a made the brain in vat scenario more plausible and to the extent people are happy to spend hours at home in the same spot interacting with a computer screen in increasingly sophisticated ways.

I am not sure if science is showing us one uniting ubiquitous principle because we also have the creativity and novelty of human invention and technology including in the arts like an endless emergence of novelty. There appears to be combination of order and chaos.

So there seems to be a uniting reason for the occurrence and behaviour of all things. — Benj96

Is this uniting reason likely to be a law of physics? God? Logic? In the case of logic what is it and what is it derived from? I feel these fundamental kind unanswered questions can leave us up a creek without a paddle. Not on safe grounds for belief formation. But maybe you have an optimistic personality and I have a pessimistic one?

If you mean that all facts are true - well, yes. — Banno

No I mean reality would be strange if reality relied on human statements and equations. I don't think you need to make a statement for something to be the true state of affairs. Maybe the statement itself counts as an assertion that we are confident about something to the point that it seems to capture a true state of affairs.

I have an uncertainty that we can know the true state of affairs and reason for being. So I suppose what I value about truth is aiming towards it. Always aiming towards it.

I suppose as well from my religious background they have an overriding narrative about reasons for existence and strong claim about their truths to the point of infallibility. It suggests a difficulty in dealing with uncertainty.

But there was supposed to be a day of enlightenment when you met God in heaven and all would be revealed to you. I am still partially waiting for that moment of revelation. it would be strange to die and not know what on earth an of this was fundamentally about.

I feel a lot of groups and ideologies try to have some kind of certainties for psychological reasons with the exception of Buddhists and their notion of impermanence although I don't know how effective that really is because I read one article that said Buddhists showed higher levels of fear of death than average.

reality would be strange if reality relied on human statements and equations. — Andrew4Handel

But - to a large extent it does; property and mortgages and promises all rely on language, and are real. So some things are true in virtue of language, other things not so much.

Truth is complicated. It would be odd if we could set out in a sentence a method or algorithm that could distinguish all true sentences from false sentences. Examples that claim to do this - coherence and correspondence and pragmatics - all have counter instances.

Another thing folk miss is the difference between a list of things that are true and an explanation of truth, between what is true and what being "true" is. I think you and I do understand what it is for a sentence to be true. So I don't think a definition of truth is needed. I think were we differ is in which sentences we think are true. Some sentences you think are true, other folk think are false.

And this is why we need to clearly differentiate between a sentence's being true and its being believed true.

And keep in mind that you do know at least some things, and further that you need not rely on things to be beyond doubt before you believe them.

Philosophical thinking can attract folk to extreme views.

Some old notes...
______________

Statements are combinations of nouns and verbs and such like; Some statements are either true or false, and we can call these propositions. So, "The present king of France is bald" is a statement, but not a proposition.

Beliefs range over propositions.

(Arguably, they might be made to range over statements: Fred believes the present king of France is bald. Some rendition of the possible worlds definition of a proposition is needed.)

“Jeff believes in democracy” looks like a counter example to beliefs ranging over propositions, but the superficial structure hides the proposition: “Jeff believes governments ought be democratic” or some such

Beliefs are stated as a relation between an agent and a proposition. This superficial structure serves to show that a belief is always both about a proposition and about some agent. It might be misleading as the proposition is not the object of the belief but constitutes the belief.

This relation is such that if the agent acts in some way then there is a belief and a desire that together are sufficient to explain the agent's action. Banno wants water; he believes he can pour a glass from the tap; so he goes to the tap to pour a glass of water.

The logical problem here, the philosophical interesting side issue, is that beliefs overdetermine our actions. There are other beliefs and desires that could explain my going to the tap.
______________

We know some statement when at the least we believe it, it fits in with our other beliefs, and when it is true.

The "fits in with other beliefs" is a first approximation for a justification. Something stronger is needed, but material implication will not do.

It does not make sense to ask if we know X to be true; that's exactly the same as asking if we know X. The "we only know it if it is true" bit is only there because we can't know things that are false.

If you cannot provide a justification, that is, if you cannot provide other beliefs with which a given statement coheres, then you cannot be said to know it.

A belief that is not subject to doubt is a certainty.

Without a difference between belief and truth, we can't be wrong; if we can't be wrong, we can't fix our mistakes; without being able to fix our mistakes, we can't make things better.

I think the situation in Ukraine highlights the problem for moral truths and truths that are created solely through language like property rights, politics and a countries boundaries.

Ukraine is fighting a war for it's survival, for the survival of its identity and political system and for the consistent application of rule of law in the world and national integrity.

But people can dispute property claims, political claims, legal claims and boundary claims. This is why I believe we have a problem with asserting as truth things that don't simply represent the current state of affairs.

I think that skepticism about these kinds of truth does not favour either side of a dispute but calls for a compromise where we are forced to cooperate or be in a constant state of war over our values.

If Russia defeats Ukraine it will be a loss for all of us for the value placed on notions like territorial integrity, democracy and so on. But these kind of human inventions seem to be defeasible. And social structures and values etc have to be defended by force or threat of force.

The concept of moral truth seems irrelevant if it unenforceable. Truths seem to just be what is and not what we want to be the case. We may have to acknowledge that political, ethical and similar statements are just statements of preference that we are going to battle for supremacy over. Or may be nature will just let us destroy ourselves through war or climate disaster or something else.

Another thing folk miss is the difference between a list of things that are true and an explanation of truth, between what is true and what being "true" is. I think you and I do understand what it is for a sentence to be true. So I don't think a definition of truth is needed. I think were we differ is in which sentences we think are true. Some sentences you think are true, other folk think are false. — Banno

I think that my brain is veering between these two things. There is the concept of truth and a possibly infinite array of truths.

There is a concept of truth that only seems to apply to sentences and mental states and seems to imply a match between the content or representation of a sentence and reality. It seems to be relevant in terms of action in the sense that false beliefs may make you act inappropriately.

Another concept of truth seems to be the ultimate truth as in what is the underlying cause of reality or essences.

For me truth is that which is most permanent in reality. That which is unchanging. Thus absolute truth is fundamental and constant. The single law that governs the entire universe.

As we know time means things change. Thus "degree of truth" of any given existant is time dependent. Some existants are more time enduring - millions of years, billions of years, maybe even eternally - think thermodynamics at the basis of newtonian physics.

Some existants on the other hand are less time enduring (true only for a split second, or even nano or femtoseconds). Think quantum physics.

So truth permeates all rates of change from the very slow and consistent, to the instantaneous and brief. And the difference between the two ends of the spectrum is relativity and time/duration.

Everything changes (partial truths/temporally contextualised truths) except for fundamental truth (which does not change regardless of time).

The relationships between any given truth at any moment through time is the basis for knowledge. Knowability and awareness. And because knowledge is power, knowledge is the ability to control, predict etc, truth is also the basis for morality. Speaking the truth (educating/imparting knowledge) empowers people to use it benevolently.

Of course one can opt to use truths malevolently, but that requires hiding the truth/keeping it to yourself, so as to prevent others from being aware of your actions.

You cannot control others/manipulate them if they know more than you. If they're more aware. Because they instead would be in a position of control.

I feel that definitional issues around truth may be misleading.

Definitions always seem to be a problem because we are trying to create words to describe something by discerning what features warrant a word attached to them to talk about them.

For example we could describe a dog as a four legged animal with fur and a tail but this would also describe a cat. In the end to correctly verbally describe a dog we may have to say an animal that barks and even eventually go right down to the level of genetic differences.

But in reality I would hazard to say that everyone can identify what is a cat and what is a dog.

So in the case of truth and falsity very young children understand and utilise truth and falsity by seeking to deceive their parents. Such as when a parent asks "did you make a mess in the kitchen?" and the child says "no".