Well, I think the best way to proceed is to ask a slightly different question - when would we (that is, highly reflective rational truth-seekers) be satisfied that a true theory of truth has been described to us? That is, what would it take for us all to be satisfied that our question - 'what is truth?' - has been answered? — Bartricks
But the quest for the truth suggests that we are not content with things, — Brett
Is it possible the quest for truth, the definition of it a hopeless quest? — Brett
That is, truth is the property of being a proposition that Reason asserts to be the case. When Reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case. Her asserting it, and its being true are one and the same. — Bartricks
But what (or who) is Reason? — Possibility
Aren’t you basing all your ‘truth’ on an assumption that everyone knows this particular ‘truth’. — Possibility
Not sure I follow. I am assuming that upon reflection all reasonable people will agree about the form the answer to the question must take. That is, it must take the form of a proposition that the faculties of reason of most of us seems to endorse.
And then I am assuming that reasonable people will agree that if we'd all agree that "theory X" is the true theory of truth if our faculties of reason represent Reason to be asserting its contents to be the case, then by default we should assume that truth itself is synonymous with that property. — Bartricks
That's the next question. It is the question it is appropriate to ask if my answer to the "what is truth?" question - namely that 'truth' is the property of being a proposition whose contents Reason asserts to be the case - is true.
But we can agree that my answer is true, even if we subsequently disagree about who or what Reason is. So I hesitate to say who or what Reason is for fear that many will think my answer to that question will discredit my answer to the "what is truth?" question (which it doesn't). — Bartricks
o, you’re making an assumption that anyone who disagrees with your definition is not ‘reasonable’ — Possibility
You’re limiting the parameters of the discussion to manipulate the ‘truth’ your claim. — Possibility
I commend your honesty in acknowledging fear as your main reason for trying to corral the discussion. But I would argue that the truth of your answer, as it is structured, is entirely dependent on a shared meaning of ‘Reason’. — Possibility
...'truth' is the property of being a proposition whose contents Reason asserts to be the case - is true. — Bartricks
I don’t value ‘reason’ quite as highly as you do, by my estimates. — Possibility
Truth is a shared meaning achieved without ignorance, isolation or exclusion of any kind. — Possibility
Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen — creativesoul
Arguing for any claim is an appeal to Reason. — creativesoul
Truth is one such thing, as is true belief, meaning, and Mt. Everest. — creativesoul
Truth is correspondence. — creativesoul
Are you denying that true belief exists prior to language? — creativesoul
I'm talking about 'truth'. I have said nothing whatsoever about true beliefs and language. Nothing — Bartricks
It seems that you do not recognize the existential connection between truth and belief. — creativesoul
If true belief is prior to language, then either so too is truth or true belief can exist without truth, which is nonsense. — creativesoul
The criterion you've put forth for "truth" can be satisfied by falsehood. — creativesoul
1.2k
↪Possibility
I don’t value ‘reason’ quite as highly as you do, by my estimates.
— Possibility
Then you are not as reasonable as I am. — Bartricks
↪creativesoul
Are you denying that true belief exists prior to language?
— creativesoul
Er, what? I'm talking about 'truth'. I have said nothing whatsoever about beliefs and language. Nothing. — Bartricks
970
↪Brett
But the quest for the truth suggests that we are not content with things,
— Brett
I don't see the relevance. The question I am trying to answer is "what is truth?" Why truth is important is a distinct question. If you don't even know what truth is, how can you possibly hope to answer your question? My question is the more fundamental and so it must be answered first. — Bartricks
So what is truth, then? Well, I think the best way to proceed is to ask a slightly different question - when would we (that is, highly reflective rational truth-seekers) be satisfied that a true theory of truth has been described to us? That is, what would it take for us all to be satisfied that our question - 'what is truth?' - has been answered? — Bartricks
I think we can answer that one decisively: all rational reflectors will be satisfied the question has been ansered when the answer is one that their faculties of reason represents to be true. That is, upon reflecting on it - upon applying their reason to it - they can see that if follows rationally from claims that are self-evident to reason. After all, it is precisley becasue the above theories do not seem to be like this that they are not universally accepted. — Bartricks
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.