How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

You learn what true is by learning about false.

we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue' — A Seagull

That's quite circular, and hence not an explanation at all.

Propositions (or statements) can be labelled as 'true' when they are considered to be an accurate representation of an idea that the brain/mind has labelled as 'true'. — A Seagull

...and that's just as circular.

How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?
— Monist

You learn what true is by learning about false. — Banno

Yup.

It is only after becoming aware that things aren't the way one thought they were(only after becoming aware of being mistaken), that one begins to understand the role that truth/falsity play in all thought, belief, and statements thereof.

It is meaningless to state that a statement 'is true' ( As opposed to having a 'label of true'), except that the statement is part of an explicit axiomatic formal system; and even then it is only true within that axiomatic system.

So is it also meaningless to state that a statement is false?

Or are you in the process of re-inventing the redundancy theory of truth?

Are you in the state of denying the redundancy theory?

no.

So is it also meaningless to state that a statement is false?

Or are you in the process of re-inventing the redundancy theory of truth? — Banno

No I agree with the redundancy theory of truth, 'truth' is just a label of convenience (as is falsity).

For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'. if the 'I' is removed from the claim then the claim becomes meaningless.

(as is falsity). — A Seagull

That's not right. As in, you've just sown that you do not understand the redundancy theory.

For someone to claim that a statement or proposition is true, it means ''I believe this statement'. — A Seagull

IF that were so, no one would ever be mistaken; for to be mistaken is to beleive that such-and-such is true, when it is not.

To the extent truth is taken to mean what really is, devoid of any subjective judgment, it is unknowable. I think Kant clarified that. So, if we have a statement that demands a non-subjective interpretation of an external referent (e.g. "the cat is on the mat"), we cannot know whether that is true. In fact, we can't even fathom what would be required to prove it.

The simple "the cat is on the mat" is true if the cat is on the mat is correct, although it's sort of a useless statement epistemologically, considering we can never know objectively if the cat is on the mat, or even what it would mean to be an objective cat on an objective mat.

It seems only the theologians and the scientists know what truth is. The philosophers don't, mostly because they lack the faith of the theologian and the pragmatism of the scientist.

o the extent truth is taken to mean what really is, devoid of any subjective judgment, it is unknowable. I think Kant clarified that. So, if we have a statement that demands a non-subjective interpretation of an external referent (e.g. "the cat is on the mat"), we cannot know whether that is true. In fact, we can't even fathom what would be required to prove it. — Hanover

It is extraordinary! The extent that those with a philosophical bent will go to deny themselves the obvious. There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat!

It's delusional.

It is extraordinary! The extent that those with a philosophical bent will go to deny themselves the obvious. There is the cat, on the mat, before poor Hanover, and yet he cannot know that the cat is on the mat!

It's delusional. — Banno

I didn't claim to be a philosopher, and I'm sure not a scientist, so I must be a theologian. My faith in the cat being on the mat saves me from one form of delusion, but maybe my faith is my highest delusion.

At any rate, your reference to what you know seems to ignore the question at hand, which is what truth is. You have a justified belief I'm sure, but what does it mean to say it is true the cat is on the mat? Does it just mean you have a really good justification for it and you believe it? As has been alluded to in other posts, is the truth element superfluous? If not, what does it mean?

what does it mean to say it is true the cat is on the mat? — Hanover

What is extraordinary is that it is so hard for some to understand the answer.

"The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat.

That's all there is to it.

What is the meaning of "the cat is on the mat? That the cat is on the mat.

All else is sophistry.

:up:

"The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat.
...

All else is sophistry. — Banno

And it's not sophistry to try and claim that "the cat is on the mat" is something epistemically different from the cat is on the mat, simply because of the quotation marks?

No.

The cat is on the mat.

"The cat is on the mat" contains six words.

See the difference?

The cat is on the mat" is true IFF the cat is on the mat — Banno

I acknowledged that. Scroll up and you'll see. But we've said nothing of whether the cat is on the mat. We've only explained what makes a statement true. I'm my world, truth relates to things outside language.

You want something more, that will make "the cat is on the mat" true, beyond the cat's being on the mat.

How's that?

You want something more, that will make "the cat is on the mat" true, beyond the cat's being on the mat. — Banno

I'm not looking for the definition of when "the cat is on the mat is true. In your house, you have a cat and a mat, right? Is the cat on the mat?

I'm not looking for the definition of when "the cat is on the mat is true. In your house, you have a cat and a mat, right? Is the cat on the mat? — Hanover

You want something more, that will make "the cat is on the mat" true, beyond the cat's being on the mat. — Banno

In your house, you have a cat and a mat, right? Is the cat on the mat? — Hanover

Only when "the cat is on the mat" is true.

I don't think you have a coherent objection.

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

How can one know what a door is, without knowing what a door is in the first place?

How can one know how to ride a bike without knowing how to ride a bike in the first place?

I don't think you have a coherent objection. — Banno

Is your cat on your mat or not?

#1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place? — Monist

Knowing what something is, and being able to say what it is, do not necessarily go "hand in hand".

Is your cat on your mat or not? — Hanover

But I have answered that question. "The cat is on the mat" is true exactly when the cat is on the mat.

You are unable to articulate your objection.

But I have answered that question. "The cat is on the mat" is true exactly when the cat is on the mat. — Banno

I'm quite certain my question demands a yes, no, or I don't know. You've failed to answer. I've not posited an objection. In asked a question.

When he is on the mat, yes. Otherwise no.

What more could you want?

Nothing, of course - hence, you are unable to articulate your objection.