Although, I reject the conventional Correspondence Theory. — creativesoul
On my view, correspondence with/to what's happened and/or is happening(reality/fact/actuality/the world/the way things are, etc.) is what makes thought, belief, assertions, propositions, and statements true. Truth is correspondence. — creativesoul
...truth is a property of propositions — frank
Think outside the dualistic box (without losing your mind). — frank
"All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth." -- Somebody other than Nietzsche
But shouldn't the truth, by virtue of being the truth, exert some power of its own? We can only reside in fiction for so long, right?
Or not? Maybe we're always in a fictional world even when the shit hits the fan.
To what extent does truth have power? — frank
But, I think importantly, this proposition/correspondence thing is only one part of what's going on - the part that builds 'models' of the world, and tries to make the model correspond to the situation as much as possible. It relies a lot on fixity, and macro-perspectives. This all changes quickly when the battle beings and then you need a
Pragmatic theory of truth. Which is: what's true is what works. — csalisbury
I do not understand this at all. Before battle, we need true belief to know how to plan. Battle begins. Sometimes what we predicted would happen does not. So, our belief about what was going to happen ended up being false.
Falsehood works very well for getting people to believe something that is not true. According to what you've just said... falsehood is true because it works.
Something is wrong there. Wouldn't you agree? — creativesoul
And then there are a class of 'truths' - moral, aesthetic, etc - which can only be realized by accepting your situation and knowing what things impel you to act and perceive in certain ways. These truths can only be realized through acting on them or through letting them act upon you. This is where 'radical immanence' and the collapse of subject-object and 'no view from nowhere' or 'not totality' stuff comes into play. That stuff, as well as meditation, presence, being-in. None of the above three theories can substitute for this embedded truth, though they can play a part in it. — csalisbury
Corresponds how — frank
Sometimes correspondence is close to what's meant by truth, but that doesn't bear up to close inspection. Corresponds how? — frank
Truth as actuality also makes sense until we think of the truth of an if/then statement. All of science could be thought if as a massive if/then statement. — frank
It's the nuanced account of what correspondence consists of in the conventional account that I disagree with. The explanation as it were. — creativesoul
As an explanation the correspondence theory doesn't tell us much at all. — Banno
But then, correspondence isn't wrong here. Perhaps it is right but inadequate. — Banno
Yes. That is the conventional standard I reject. — creativesoul
That's the question. As if there could be one sort of correspondence that fit every true statement; the statement s"2+2=6" corresponds to 2+2=6 in the same way that the statement "My foot hurts" corresponds to my foot hurting. — Banno
But then, correspondence isn't wrong here. — Banno
I'm not sure what you mean by "corresponds how". Don't you understand how, for example, an account of events can correspond or fail to correspond to what happened? — Janus
To state an actuality just is to state a truth — Janus
So yes, I get the intuition. I don't see any rigor to it. — frank
Dude, the equivalence in t T-sentence is defined truth-conditionaly. the "corresponds" in correspondence theory is pretty much undefined. — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.