'Truth' as an expression of agreement

Wheatley

'True' is just something we say when when we agree with some proposition, no more and no less. True does not refer to anything. To say something is 'true' we aren't referring to any correspondence or coherence of ideas. We are just sincerely expressing our agreement.

It's illogical to agree with a proposition and at the same time sincerely say, "it's not true" All that one needs to make up her mind and say that proposition X is true is whether or not she agrees with that proposition. So there you go, the necessary and sufficient conditions for saying something is 'true'.

Any problems?

Monitor

I agree. Perhaps truth is just a social cooperation strategy so we can get on with a common task.

unenlightened

Any problems? — Purple Pond

Yup. If we, you and I, agree about something (God forbid), we agree that we think it is true. But that does not make it true, it only makes it true that that we think it is true. Even if we agreed that unenlightened is the wisest person on the forum, that would not make it true. I can be wrong, and even you can be wrong, and in this case, you are wrong, although obviously you don't think you are wrong until you change your mind.

Shawn

I like to think that Rogerian agreements are the best. But, unenlightened is correct I. That we can still be wrong, although it's a matter of degrees of truth here.

Marchesk

Any problems? — Purple Pond

I disagree with your notion of truth.

Wheatley

↪unenlightened

I'm not saying that agreeing that something is true makes it true. I'm saying that when we say something is 'true' we are merely an expressing an agreement. There's a subtle difference.

Marchesk

I'm not saying that agreeing that something is true makes it true. I'm saying that when we say something is 'true' we are merely an expressing an agreement. There's a subtle difference. — Purple Pond

That seems to setup a double meaning for truth. One being how things are, the other being whether we agree with a statement on how things are.

unenlightened

↪Purple Pond

It's subtle, yet I managed to pick it up, because it is true that I am the wisest person on the forum. (Ain't that the truth!)

To say, 'P is true' is to agree that P.

But for 'P' to be true is something completely different, and independent of what is said.

Thus affirmation of truth is an expression of agreement, but truth is somfin' else.

Marchesk

Thus affirmation of truth is an expression of agreement, but truth is somfin' else. — unenlightened

Maybe we should use different terms. One is truth, the other is agreement. Or one is truth, the other is states of affairs, or whatever.

unenlightened

Maybe we should use different terms. One is truth, the other is agreement — Marchesk

That's a really good idea. I agree.

Marchesk

That's a really good idea. I agree. — unenlightened

But is it true?

unenlightened

↪Marchesk

Not according to an error theorist.

Shawn

Pragmatically speaking, all of this makes sense. How couldn't it?

Wheatley

Incidentally, I looked at the Wikipedia page on truth, and I didn't realize there was an actual theory like the one in the OP called the performative theory of truth. It looks like Strawson beat me to it.

'Truth' as an expression of agreement

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions