Bartricks, you are up to your old bar tricks. I wish bar tricks would be barred, but barring that, a bar would be nice to have, that would bar your bar tricks from being seen by those who don't want to see your posts.

Truth, to me, can be boiled down to two categories. The metaphorical truth, that is the abstraction of truth in pursuit for pragmatism, and the objective truth, the truth that is literal, observable, and can be proven time and time again. We have to, at some point, go as far as to stop at what we can see. Because the universe has given us the ability to see, hear, taste, touch, smell, then those must be a fairly good way of viewing it, or at least anything outside of said realm cannot be experienced, so therefore entirely useless to us. The way I think about it is that the universe is a game with a set of rules. Trying to prove truth beyond our comprehension isn't going to get anywhere, and, well, that's because it's literally beyond our comprehension. So, therefore, trying to find the rules of the universe will give us a better understanding of it, and that is where I find truth.

Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen. — creativesoul

Prove, please.

So what is truth, then? — Bartricks

Truth is an expression of 'what is'.

By 'what is', I don't mean facts. I mean reality in its absolute unchangeable perspective or identity. That's because no matter how much 'things' (within reality) change, reality as an identity remains the same.

So far, I think the best way to express truth is to express the principles through which it manifests (this is based on the perspective that we, humans, and everything else, are a manifestation of reality - therefore, truth is expressed by the principles which operate through everything, despite the relativity, and which also enfold everything).

I believe we can extrapolate a few of such principles, for example, the principle of cause and effect, the principle of vibration (or energy) - in that, all is vibration (or energy), etc, etc.

I believe facts are just reports of events or situations we observe. Facts can change but the truth can't be anything else or any other way.

True is what we call sentences which prevail: those whose tokens replicate successfully as free-standing (e.g. un-negated) assertions within the language.

So far, I think the best way to express truth is to express the principles through which it manifests (this is based on the perspective that we, humans, and everything else, are a manifestation of reality - therefore, truth is expressed by the principles which operate through everything, despite the relativity, and which also enfold everything). — BrianW

I think these principles need to be more inclusive than cause and effect or vibration in order to operate through and enfold ALL of reality despite relativity to space, time, value or meaning...

Truth is the correspondence of perceived to actual.

Some statements can be true; but they don't need empirical verification. They don't reflect the truth; they are merely true, such as 1=1.

Anything that is claimed to be the truth needs empirical verification; but that, in its metaphysical sense, is not available to man. Man does have perceptions, but they are not verified to reflect the actual reality.

Information of what the truth is can be gained only via the physical senses, but these senses are unreliable... or reliable. We can't tell the difference. We have no amount of certainty on how reliable our senses reflect reality.

In other words, humans are not in a position to tell whether their senses are giving them a reliable account of reality, or not.

Therefore truth exists, but man's ability to tell it is hindered by our senses which can't be verified to be reliable.

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

What if, as you say, someone asserts this proposition:

1. This statement is false.

Using your words, our Reason enables us to assert such proposition. ' When reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case.' In that case, is the proposition true or false?

Something is true for someone when all he deems relevant sources agree it is true. I don't think it makes sense to ask what is truth in some ultimate sense without referring to the individual. It's like asking "what is anger" and attempting to explain what it is without reference to a person experiencing it. We have never seen "truth" floating around, it's always be SOMEONE that makes truth claims and deems things to be true or false. "Truth" beyond that is as fanciful a notion as unicorns

I expect to be shredded for this

I think these principles need to be more inclusive than cause and effect or vibration in order to operate through and enfold ALL of reality despite relativity to space, time, value or meaning... — Possibility

More inclusive... ? In what way? And, how are the principles of cause and effect, and vibration (energy) limited?

How about blending all of these various positions and look for truths that correspond to reality, are useful and cohere with whatever that needs cohering, IF that's possible.

Personally I prefer correspondence theory of truth because it's the most basic requirement for truths - that truths be about reality. This is probably reducing the philosophy of truth to a mere game of survival played out in jungles and savannahs but the hard fact is reality can be ignored only at great risk to oneself.

What about pragmatism and truth? There's merit in valuing utility. After all one side of the entire enterprise of truth-seeking is how to use truths for our benefit. It makes sense then to say truth is about utility, especially if other theories of truth can be faulted which is probably the case. However one sticking point I see is that truths no matter how useful can't stray too far away from reality i.e. correspondence theory of truth is a limiting factor to pragmatic truths. I don't know what notion of utility is being used in pragmatism but it seems that truths, seen as corresponding to reality, are the most useful. This makes pragmatic truth superfluous.

Similarly, coherence theory of truth lacks meaning by itself. It only states that a truth must fit another truth and so on until we've built a structure of beliefs that have no inconsistencies. Ok but what about the component truths themselves - atomic truths if you will. These building block truths seem to be, again, a matter of corresponding to reality.

Ultimately, in my humble opinion, all other theories of truth are founded on the correspondence theory of truth.

:joke:

I don't understand this search for 'truth' as an abstract concept. It is only logical to relate ' truth' to a question/problem. Truth is whatever 'solves' this problem or 'answers' that question.

Sorry to answer with another question, but why do we want the truth, what do we want from it, what are we expecting? — Brett

Usefulness. The truth is useful. Falsehoods aren't.

What makes something useful? Isn't is a correspondence between what is and how the knowledge of what is is being applied? If your knowledge of what is is inaccurate, then you probably won't achieve what it is you meant to achieve.

Reason has been shown to result in false conclusions. True belief exists in it's entirety prior to Reason. Thus, the following is rejected...

...'truth' is the property of being a proposition whose contents Reason asserts to be the case - is true.
— Bartricks

Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen. — creativesoul

Reason results in false conclusions when you don't have all the relevant information (reasons) to support some conclusion. With the right input, the process of reasoning produces the right output.

Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen.
— creativesoul

Prove, please. — tim wood

I am typing and submitting a post. Does this sentence correspond to what has happened? Is it the truth?

What if, as you say, someone asserts this proposition:

1. This statement is false.

Using your words, our Reason enables us to assert such proposition. ' When reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case.' In that case, is the proposition true or false? — 3017amen

Is it true that the statement is false?

Usefulness. The truth is useful. Falsehoods aren't. — Harry Hindu

This search for 'truth' as an abstract concept is illogical. Truth is only logical in relation to a question/problem. Truth is whatever 'solves' this problem or 'answers' that question.

I absolutely agree with ovdtogt.

Truth is only true when certain set rules are in play, whatever those rules may be. The overarching set of rules would be the rules of observation and the laws the universe operates by.

Is it true that the statement is false?
1h — Harry Hindu

If the statement is true, then it is false; and if it is false, then it is true.

Something can be true and no-one believe it, and someone can believe something and it not be true. — Bartricks

I am talking about 'truth', not beliefs. They don't depend on each other, contrary to what you've asserted, as a moment's reflection reveals. Once again, the fact a proposition is true does not entail that it is believed. And the fact a proposition is believed does not entail it is true. — Bartricks

We're not too far apart here actually. I completely agree that something can be true and no-one believe it, and that someone can believe something and it not be true. I also agree that a proposition's being true does not entail that it is believed, and a proposition's being believed does not entail that it's true.

Our disagreement is the bit about interdependence between belief and truth.

In order for a proposition to be true, there must first be a proposition. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Language... belief. Therefore... true propositions are existentially dependent upon belief.

True belief exists prior to language. So too does truth. Thus, truth cannot be what you say it is. Besides that, Reason - and following the rules of entailment in particular - can lead to falsehood. See Gettier or any of the historical examples of conventional false belief.

Reason is thinking about thought and belief. It's not an entity in and of itself capable of doing stuff. So, it would be helpful if you stopped personifying reason.

Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen.
— creativesoul

Prove, please. — tim wood

What would constitute being proof of that?

I could point to Tarski's T sentence. I could implore your agreement about cats and mats. I could tell you that something or other is the case, and you could go look for yourself. I could point you towards verification/falsification methodology.

Not necessarily true conclusion. Just because someone does not value a quality in himself, does not mean that he has no high amounts of that quality. Your conclusion, Bartricks, is false. — god must be atheist

It depends on what the quality is. For example, take the quality of self-approval. Well, clearly if someone does not value a quality in themselves that does entail that they do not have as much self-approval as someone who values everything about themselves.

To be reasonable essentially involves caring what Reason says and believing things precisely because she says to believe them (so, it matters not just what you believe, but how you believe it). As such someone who does not care that much about what Reason has to say on a given matter - someone who, for instance, will not believe something Reason says if it conflicts with something they care about more - is not as reasonable as someone who cares more about what Reason says. So it does follow and you're wrong.

Truth, to me, can be boiled down to two categories. The metaphorical truth, that is the abstraction of truth in pursuit for pragmatism, and the objective truth, the truth that is literal, observable, and can be proven time and time again. — ep3265

But in the OP I provided an argument that appears to refute your view. For I provided an argument in support of the view that a proposition is true when Reason asserts its content to be the case. In order to defend your view, then, you need to show that what I said in support of my view either does not support my view, or that your view enjoys even stronger support.

Bartricks, you are up to your old bar tricks. I wish bar tricks would be barred, but barring that, a bar would be nice to have, that would bar your bar tricks from being seen by those who don't want to see your posts. — god must be atheist

The OP was started by me and you're free to ignore it. You are not experiencing oppression. And try to keep in check the oh so common desire to ban that which you cannot understand. And try - try - to stick to addressing the arguments. And when that goes badly - when you're refuted at every turn - don't take it personally. Here endeth the lesson.

Prove, please.
— tim wood

What would constitute being proof of that? — creativesoul

A proof would constitute proof of that. Your claim, you prove. It looks like you don't have one. Not to worry, no one else does either. Maybe useful to distinguish between "true" and "truth" - different words. My own conclusion is that "truth" is an abstract general term that by itself means nothing at all determinate, but at best implies that there are true statements while being entirely agnostic as to what exactly that is.

I provided an argument in support of the view that truth is a performative of Reason - that is, a proposition is true, when Reason asserts its content to be the case. — Bartricks

A lot to be said for this, if not looked at too closely.We might ask, "How does reason know?" - Or is that irrelevant? Or, we may allow reason to ground a claim that this or that proposition is true, but that doesn't reach truth itself.

Or again, we might suppose that for any given proposition a general method exists for determining whether that proposition is true or false or not-true (not-true and false being not quite the same thing). But what would that tell us about truth? My own opinion is that no such general method exists; instead, propositions are T, F, or Not-T willy-nilly and no better can be done. That reduces "truth" to being a designator of membership in a set (the set of propositions that are true) without itself being any more informative than that.

True is what we call sentences which prevai — bongo fury

What do you mean?

What if, as you say, someone asserts this proposition:

1. This statement is false.

Using your words, our Reason enables us to assert such proposition. ' When reason asserts that something is the case, it is the case.' In that case, is the proposition true or false? — 3017amen

The conclusion of my case is not that truth is constituted by some assertion of ours, but rather of Reason. So, it is when Reason - not you or I - asserts the content of a proposition that the proposition in question has the property of truth.

As for that specific proposition - well, it'd be true if Reason asserted it. Needless to say, the possibility of such propositions generates apparent counterexamples to the law of non-contradiction.

But if my view is true then they don't, as Reason clearly asserts the law of non-contradiction to be true and does not assert "this statement is false". (Plus were she to assert "this statement is false" then the law of non-contradiction is false, which is now consistent with it also being true).

So are you saying that it is logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions?

I like it.

I would worry about equivocating between “true” and “the truth”. One is a description; the other is the nominalization of that description. One describes things (propositions), and the other is a thing.

It is implied therefore. Since there are rules of the universe, and since those are the rules of which the entirety of the mind is confined to, then the reason is asserted in principle of scientific truth, therefore the encompassing truth is entirely dependent on that and that of our existence. The truth I was describing was a more subjective way to view it. There is a realm beyond human comprehension that we can try to explore, but it will always cease to show itself to us. And so, at that marker, we must conclude that truth is the universe, and what reasoning can assert from its principles.

Our disagreement is the bit about interdependence between belief and truth.

In order for a proposition to be true, there must first be a proposition. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Language... belief. Therefore... true propositions are existentially dependent upon belief.

True belief exists prior to language. So too does truth. Thus, truth cannot be what you say it is. Besides that, Reason - and following the rules of entailment in particular - can lead to falsehood. See Gettier or any of the historical examples of conventional false belief. — creativesoul

I agree that in order for a proposition to be true, there has to be a proposition (for that is self-evident to my reason and to the reason of virtually everyone).

Then you claim that propositions depend on language. Well, I doubt that, but even if we grant it for the sake of argument the rest of what you say does not follow. How do you get from that to "truth exists prior to language"? If - if - propositions cannot exist without there being a language (not a claim I accept, I stress), then truth - as it is a property of propositions - cannot exist prior to language. So I do not see how you're arriving at these conclusions or what, about my position, you are challenging with them.

So are you saying that it is logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions? — 3017amen

No, I don't see how anything I have said implies that. I think it is possible for there to be no true propositions.

If that's inconsistent with my view that truth is constituted by Reason's asssertions, then I'll change my view - but it seems entirely consistent with that view that it would be possible for there to be no true propositions, as it seems entirely possible for Reason to assert nothing.