What is truth?

[Hobbes' Choice]

There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. All knowledge is a-posteriori.

]

Wrong there is no such thing as a priori 'evidence'.
But a priori knowledge is things know from deduction rather than observation; by definition

You can't give me one example, because it doesn't exist.

ghost [gohst]
noun
1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

There is the definition of Ghost, yet no such thing can be proven to actually exist.

Does not matter. You are still a moron.

[SpheresOfBalance]

There is no such thing as a-priori knowledge. All knowledge is a-posteriori.

]

Wrong there is no such thing as a priori 'evidence'.
But a priori knowledge is things know from deduction rather than observation; by definition

You can't give me one example, because it doesn't exist.

ghost [gohst]
noun
1. the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.

There is the definition of Ghost, yet no such thing can be proven to actually exist.

Does not matter. You are still a moron.

And you're still a cock sucker! And an extremely ignorant one to boot!
Increasingly, I feel really sorry for your ex-students.

[Immanuel Can]

PS;The CTT is the theory that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.

Is that true?

[Hobbes' Choice]

And an extremely ignorant one to boot!
Increasingly, I feel really sorry for your ex-students.

You need to go back to kindergarten.

1+1=2 Is a priori. Numbers do not exist in nature.

Now fuck off back under the rock you live in, before I turn the light back on.

[SpheresOfBalance]

And an extremely ignorant one to boot!
Increasingly, I feel really sorry for your ex-students.

You need to go back to kindergarten.

1+1=2 Is a priori. Numbers do not exist in nature.
Incorrect, before anyone could do that, they have to FIRST be 'told' what one, two, plus, and equals means. Only then can they perform such operations, thus a-posteriori.

a posteriori [ey po-steer-ee-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, -awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence.
Compare a priori (def 1).
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience.
Compare a priori (def 2).

a priori [ey prahy-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, ey pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee, ah pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation.
Compare a posteriori (def 1).
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait.
Compare a posteriori (def 2).
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic:
an a priori judgment.

Of course I'm sure that you'd like to believe that you were born with the knowledge of all of the world in your little pea brain, but in fact you were programmed with every bit of knowledge contained in that pea you call a brain, by all your teachers, thus ANYTHING your ineptness can do with it is 100% a-posteriori. No your little pea is not a conduit connected to the whole of universal knowledge. We're simply parrots, mimics that are fed what we're told is true, then we puke it back up, much like a penguin or other such birds. So you my friend are simply a recording device, and I find it utterly amazing that your pea can contain such quantities of BS.

Boy, we're a couple of pricks, aren't we?
I can always count on you to fight fire with fire.

Now fuck off back under the rock you live in, before I turn the light back on.

Hey I'm not a fucking insect, I'm a damn mushroom!!! And don't you forget it, (pea brain)!

[ken]

Ken you're not understanding my rant.

Parts of your rant I understand. The other less informative, off track parts I find difficult to follow and understand. But not to worry. You will share that information if you want to.

Because I'm relatively old, much of my rants contain, (between the lines), truths that I believe to be self evident, (so I leave them out), if someone misses those, they often miss the entire thing.

How do you expect us to not miss, what you leave out? I, for one, have no idea whatsoever what the truths that you believe to be self evident if you do not tell me firstly. It helps us all if you put in the things you believe to be self evident, then we can grasp better what it is that you are saying and talking about exactly.

I believe that universally, there is no such thing as relative truth. Those things which people call relative truth's are actually falsehoods, not containing truth whatsoever. Understand?

I understand that what you say is you believe that universally there is no such thing as relative truth. And, you also believe those things which people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which do not contain truth whatsoever. So yes I understand that is what you believe, however, in one sentence you say there is no such thing as relative truth, but then you say in the next sentence those things that people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which contain no truth whatsoever.
Firstly, is there relative truth or not?
Secondly, would not falsehoods just be, falsehoods? Why do you call falsehoods "those things which people call relative truths"?
Thirdly, on looking, 'relative truth' has a few differing definitions. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you write relative truth?
Fourthly, why do say that universally there is no such thing as relative truth? Are you thinking that if you use the word universally, then that somehow makes "it", whatever words come next, absolute truth?

We have to make a distinction here. There are things that "are" universal to all people, then there are things that "can be" relative to all people.

If there are things that are universal to all people, then that would, in of itself, suggest that not just all people could but all people would be in agreement.

What exactly are the things that "are" universal to all people?

And, what exactly are the things that "can be" relative to all people?

In terms of vegetables, it might be true that kale tastes best to you and zucchini tastes best to me, but it's a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best.

To me it would not just be a falsehood to say that but also an extremely foolhardy and stupid thing to say. I don't like to talk like that and wonder why people still talk like that, especially after I explain to them why it is wrong to talk like that and after I have provided them with far better, more truthful ways to express themselves.

It may be a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best, but it certainly is not a falsehood for me to say that either kale or zucchini tastes better than the other, to me.

I am just expressing myself, truthfully. There is no falsehood here whatsoever. Is this a universal, absolute truth? It is after all only a relative and subjective truth to me. So is this a relative truth or a universal truth, to you, or something different?

A lot of young men might argue over which band is best, their 'preference' just can't be true universally.

Obviously.

In fact, is there anything that can be "best"? Best to what exactly and in who's view is it best, needs to be taken into account.

If any person tries to argue what they believe is right and others do not agree, then it (whatever it is) is actually not worth arguing about. Either an argument is sound and valid, i.e., a fact that is unambiguous and could not be disputed, and thus this type of argument could not be disagreed with, therefore it could be agreed with by all. Or, an argument is unsound and/or invalid, i.e., a statement that is only partly true or not true at all, and thus this type of argument will obviously not be agreed with by all.

Those types of truths, philosophically, really don't matter.

This is where I find your language somewhat confusing. In some of yours sentences you say relative truths do not exist, but then you continue on saying that those types of truths, i.e., relative truths, really do not matter. Which one is it going to be? Relative truths exist or not? Either something exists or it does not exist. Please pick one and stick to it. If something exists, then it can or can not matter, but if something does not exist, then it does not exist and so is not worthy of talking about, philosophically.

You have also alluded to "Those types of truths" are in fact falsehoods. But I struggle with how you can see a (type of) truth as a falsehood also. If a truth is a truth, then it is not a falsehood, right?

The truths I'm always speaking of, are of the universal type! They are really the only ones important to philosophy.

Could you please provide some examples of those truths that really are the only important ones to philosophy for me here? I will see if my formula for universal truth works or not.

Everyone knows, I'm sure, that personal preference for something is often relative amongst people, it's subjective.

And is that not what is sometimes referred to as relative truth? Again, what is your definition of relative truth?

Universally, I'm an empiricist.

Again you use the word 'universally' here. What is the purpose of this please?

I was referring to universal truths. I kind of went off due to things in my life that defy the universal, a means of releasing steam. Which I hope was apparent.

Again I will say, to me both relative truth and universal truth exist. And, what is subjective or relative to ALL of us, i.e., everyone, is a truth that can not be disputed, therefore it can also be a universal truth.

See immediately above. Here, in this philosophy forum, I'm only ever referencing universal truths.

None of this answers any of my questions.

Universal truths are.

You did not finish your sentence. I am unsure what you mean by universal truths are...

You sound like a very level headed and patient person, good for you!

Does that mean you will or will not provide your definition of relative truth?

Here I refer to the actual universe; that which bore us, and that which ends us, at least this particular form.

If you are saying the universal rule is the actual universe, then I can not disagree with that.

I do wonder now, however, how could a universe have a different form?

What you seem to not understand is that there are truths of the universe, from it's perspective, which are absolute. Then there are those things from mans perspective, supposed truths, in fact some are and some aren't, they can be both relative and absolute amongst men and the universe.

You are right in that, to you, it may seem like I do not understand, but I DO understand. I also have not actually said anything to disagree with what you say here.

For the truths of mans perspective to be absolute they have to agree with the universal perspective. Those supposed truths that can never agree with the universal absolute truth, really don't matter, accept in their understanding, so as to iron out the insignificant differences amongst men. What one prefers, like either kale or spinach, is an example of such meaningless relative truths, accept as I said, a means to understand the differences between us, which matters not in the universal arena.

I challenge you to provide a relative human truth that actually matters in a universal context. The universe reigns supreme, mans BS is just that, mans BS. Once we fully understand the human mind, man's relative truths shall be fully revealed in an absolute manner, in such a time there should be no petty bickering or warmongering except by those still in denial.

When have I ever said a relative human truth actually matters?

In fact a 'relative human truth', whatever that is, could and would only exist relative to Universal Truth. Humans are not separate from the Universe. Human beings are only a part of the Universe. Human's, or anything's truth, has to be sound with the Universe and Its absolute Truth.

I have already understood the Mind, and there is no human mind. A human mind is just a misconstrued idea from what really exists.

Everything else you have written here I agree with. Why do you think otherwise?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Parts of your rant I understand. The other less informative, off track parts I find difficult to follow and understand. But not to worry. You will share that information if you want to.



How do you expect us to not miss, what you leave out? I, for one, have no idea whatsoever what the truths that you believe to be self evident if you do not tell me firstly. It helps us all if you put in the things you believe to be self evident, then we can grasp better what it is that you are saying and talking about exactly.



I understand that what you say is you believe that universally there is no such thing as relative truth. And, you also believe those things which people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which do not contain truth whatsoever. So yes I understand that is what you believe, however, in one sentence you say there is no such thing as relative truth, but then you say in the next sentence those things that people call relative truths are actually falsehoods, which contain no truth whatsoever.
Firstly, is there relative truth or not?
Secondly, would not falsehoods just be, falsehoods? Why do you call falsehoods "those things which people call relative truths"?
Thirdly, on looking, 'relative truth' has a few differing definitions. Maybe you could explain what you mean when you write relative truth?
Fourthly, why do say that universally there is no such thing as relative truth? Are you thinking that if you use the word universally, then that somehow makes "it", whatever words come next, absolute truth?



If there are things that are universal to all people, then that would, in of itself, suggest that not just all people could but all people would be in agreement.

What exactly are the things that "are" universal to all people?

And, what exactly are the things that "can be" relative to all people?



To me it would not just be a falsehood to say that but also an extremely foolhardy and stupid thing to say. I don't like to talk like that and wonder why people still talk like that, especially after I explain to them why it is wrong to talk like that and after I have provided them with far better, more truthful ways to express themselves.

It may be a falsehood to say that either kale or zucchini tastes best, but it certainly is not a falsehood for me to say that either kale or zucchini tastes better than the other, to me.

I am just expressing myself, truthfully. There is no falsehood here whatsoever. Is this a universal, absolute truth? It is after all only a relative and subjective truth to me. So is this a relative truth or a universal truth, to you, or something different?



Obviously.

In fact, is there anything that can be "best"? Best to what exactly and in who's view is it best, needs to be taken into account.

If any person tries to argue what they believe is right and others do not agree, then it (whatever it is) is actually not worth arguing about. Either an argument is sound and valid, i.e., a fact that is unambiguous and could not be disputed, and thus this type of argument could not be disagreed with, therefore it could be agreed with by all. Or, an argument is unsound and/or invalid, i.e., a statement that is only partly true or not true at all, and thus this type of argument will obviously not be agreed with by all.



This is where I find your language somewhat confusing. In some of yours sentences you say relative truths do not exist, but then you continue on saying that those types of truths, i.e., relative truths, really do not matter. Which one is it going to be? Relative truths exist or not? Either something exists or it does not exist. Please pick one and stick to it. If something exists, then it can or can not matter, but if something does not exist, then it does not exist and so is not worthy of talking about, philosophically.

You have also alluded to "Those types of truths" are in fact falsehoods. But I struggle with how you can see a (type of) truth as a falsehood also. If a truth is a truth, then it is not a falsehood, right?



Could you please provide some examples of those truths that really are the only important ones to philosophy for me here? I will see if my formula for universal truth works or not.



And is that not what is sometimes referred to as relative truth? Again, what is your definition of relative truth?



Again you use the word 'universally' here. What is the purpose of this please?




Again I will say, to me both relative truth and universal truth exist. And, what is subjective or relative to ALL of us, i.e., everyone, is a truth that can not be disputed, therefore it can also be a universal truth.




None of this answers any of my questions.




You did not finish your sentence. I am unsure what you mean by universal truths are...




Does that mean you will or will not provide your definition of relative truth?



If you are saying the universal rule is the actual universe, then I can not disagree with that.

I do wonder now, however, how could a universe have a different form?

What you seem to not understand is that there are truths of the universe, from it's perspective, which are absolute. Then there are those things from mans perspective, supposed truths, in fact some are and some aren't, they can be both relative and absolute amongst men and the universe.

You are right in that, to you, it may seem like I do not understand, but I DO understand. I also have not actually said anything to disagree with what you say here.

For the truths of mans perspective to be absolute they have to agree with the universal perspective. Those supposed truths that can never agree with the universal absolute truth, really don't matter, accept in their understanding, so as to iron out the insignificant differences amongst men. What one prefers, like either kale or spinach, is an example of such meaningless relative truths, accept as I said, a means to understand the differences between us, which matters not in the universal arena.

I challenge you to provide a relative human truth that actually matters in a universal context. The universe reigns supreme, mans BS is just that, mans BS. Once we fully understand the human mind, man's relative truths shall be fully revealed in an absolute manner, in such a time there should be no petty bickering or warmongering except by those still in denial.

When have I ever said a relative human truth actually matters?

In fact a 'relative human truth', whatever that is, could and would only exist relative to Universal Truth. Humans are not separate from the Universe. Human beings are only a part of the Universe. Human's, or anything's truth, has to be sound with the Universe and Its absolute Truth.

I have already understood the Mind, and there is no human mind. A human mind is just a misconstrued idea from what really exists.

Everything else you have written here I agree with. Why do you think otherwise?

I Like you Ken, because you're reasonable! We may speak slightly different languages, maybe sometimes actually saying the same thing, little are we aware, but that's nothing to get up about!

In no way can we say everything needed to be said, to make something so complex, be easily understood by another, within such a forum of no verbal and/or visual inflections, and by using such a relatively brief amount of words.

And so we have finally come to the conclusion, that what we have said all along is not so different after all. It would seem we have finally filled in the blanks that were initially hiding respectively, between each of our previously chosen lines.

Hey, I've never made the claim that my vocabulary was necessarily the cats meow in terms of the whole of study of the English Language, you?

Also remember that as an older person, not in optimum physical shape, bearing unknown pathogens and possible heavy metals as well as chemical contamination, ones mind may not be initially clear enough so as to word things in such a way, easily understood by another of similar, yet a completely different set of environmental's, not necessarily conducive of similar formulations of thought, for others of similar relative environmental circumstances.

Did I just screw up, (tie a knot in), that last thought, or did you get the gist? Basically that we two, much like the topic at hand, are of relative mindsets, born of ever varying relative environments, such that the meeting of our minds eyes, may have to work very hard to compensate for those unaccountable differences between us.

Was the reiteration clearer or not needed?

Your turn, unless of course you find yourself exhausted...

[ken]

What you seem to not understand is that there are truths of the universe, from it's perspective, which are absolute. Then there are those things from mans perspective, supposed truths, in fact some are and some aren't, they can be both relative and absolute amongst men and the universe.

You are right in that, to you, it may seem like I do not understand, but I DO understand. I also have not actually said anything to disagree with what you say here.

For the truths of mans perspective to be absolute they have to agree with the universal perspective. Those supposed truths that can never agree with the universal absolute truth, really don't matter, accept in their understanding, so as to iron out the insignificant differences amongst men. What one prefers, like either kale or spinach, is an example of such meaningless relative truths, accept as I said, a means to understand the differences between us, which matters not in the universal arena.

I challenge you to provide a relative human truth that actually matters in a universal context. The universe reigns supreme, mans BS is just that, mans BS. Once we fully understand the human mind, man's relative truths shall be fully revealed in an absolute manner, in such a time there should be no petty bickering or warmongering except by those still in denial.

When have I ever said a relative human truth actually matters?

In fact a 'relative human truth', whatever that is, could and would only exist relative to Universal Truth. Humans are not separate from the Universe. Human beings are only a part of the Universe. Human's, or anything's truth, has to be sound with the Universe and Its absolute Truth.

I have already understood the Mind, and there is no human mind. A human mind is just a misconstrued idea from what really exists.

Everything else you have written here I agree with. Why do you think otherwise?

I Like you Ken, because you're reasonable! We may speak slightly different languages, maybe sometimes actually saying the same thing, little are we aware, but that's nothing to get up about!

In no way can we say everything needed to be said, to make something so complex, be easily understood by another, within such a forum of no verbal and/or visual inflections, and by using such a relatively brief amount of words.

And so we have finally come to the conclusion, that what we have said all along is not so different after all. It would seem we have finally filled in the blanks that were initially hiding respectively, between each of our previously chosen lines.

Hey, I've never made the claim that my vocabulary was necessarily the cats meow in terms of the whole of study of the English Language, you?

Also remember that as an older person, not in optimum physical shape, bearing unknown pathogens and possible heavy metals as well as chemical contamination, ones mind may not be initially clear enough so as to word things in such a way, easily understood by another of similar, yet a completely different set of environmental's, not necessarily conducive of similar formulations of thought, for others of similar relative environmental circumstances.

Did I just screw up, (tie a knot in), that last thought, or did you get the gist? Basically that we two, much like the topic at hand, are of relative mindsets, born of ever varying relative environments, such that the meeting of our minds eyes, may have to work very hard to compensate for those unaccountable differences between us.

Was the reiteration clearer or not needed?

Your turn, unless of course you find yourself exhausted...

Not exhausting at all. I got the gist the whole way through, very clear to me. Very close to parts of what i am trying to explain also.

My whole goal is to finding people who want to discuss deeply enough in a two-way back and forth peaceful manner in order to uncover some of the Truth that we all are hiding behind our own set of differing thoughts, beliefs, preconceptions, etc, which were created from the differing environments that we all each individually live in. I think there is a deeper Truth with-in all of us that we all equally share and agree on.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You are right in that, to you, it may seem like I do not understand, but I DO understand. I also have not actually said anything to disagree with what you say here.



When have I ever said a relative human truth actually matters?

In fact a 'relative human truth', whatever that is, could and would only exist relative to Universal Truth. Humans are not separate from the Universe. Human beings are only a part of the Universe. Human's, or anything's truth, has to be sound with the Universe and Its absolute Truth.

I have already understood the Mind, and there is no human mind. A human mind is just a misconstrued idea from what really exists.

Everything else you have written here I agree with. Why do you think otherwise?

I Like you Ken, because you're reasonable! We may speak slightly different languages, maybe sometimes actually saying the same thing, little are we aware, but that's nothing to get up about!

In no way can we say everything needed to be said, to make something so complex, be easily understood by another, within such a forum of no verbal and/or visual inflections, and by using such a relatively brief amount of words.

And so we have finally come to the conclusion, that what we have said all along is not so different after all. It would seem we have finally filled in the blanks that were initially hiding respectively, between each of our previously chosen lines.

Hey, I've never made the claim that my vocabulary was necessarily the cats meow in terms of the whole of study of the English Language, you?

Also remember that as an older person, not in optimum physical shape, bearing unknown pathogens and possible heavy metals as well as chemical contamination, ones mind may not be initially clear enough so as to word things in such a way, easily understood by another of similar, yet a completely different set of environmental's, not necessarily conducive of similar formulations of thought, for others of similar relative environmental circumstances.

Did I just screw up, (tie a knot in), that last thought, or did you get the gist? Basically that we two, much like the topic at hand, are of relative mindsets, born of ever varying relative environments, such that the meeting of our minds eyes, may have to work very hard to compensate for those unaccountable differences between us.

Was the reiteration clearer or not needed?

Your turn, unless of course you find yourself exhausted...

Not exhausting at all. I got the gist the whole way through, very clear to me. Very close to parts of what i am trying to explain also.

My whole goal is to finding people who want to discuss deeply enough in a two-way back and forth peaceful manner in order to uncover some of the Truth that we all are hiding behind our own set of differing thoughts, beliefs, preconceptions, etc, which were created from the differing environments that we all each individually live in. I think there is a deeper Truth with-in all of us that we all equally share and agree on.

Ken, I couldn't agree more.

Often the reason I seem to be unreasonable on certain topics, is because I see that the other person could be clinging to their argument, for nefarious purposes. My thinking along the lines of, absolute power, corrupts absolutely. And we certainly don't need any more terrorists! For instance: I can see that some that believe truth is relative, could be doing so, to further their belief that their terrorist activities are justified. After all, if truth is relative one can make up their own truths, that include hurting people. In truth though, our lives continuing for as long as they can, is something almost all of us would agree upon. It seems to be a universal amongst men, in their right mind of course. Anyone not seeing it that way, instead taking lives for their own selfish reasons, are first and foremost, cowards, scared shitless, despite their denial of becoming that which they actually fear, as a means to command it, as if that shall somehow make them immune to it! These types are delusional, and unfortunately their numbers are far greater than my liking. I'm sure that many would agree!

[Hobbes' Choice]

And an extremely ignorant one to boot!
Increasingly, I feel really sorry for your ex-students.

You need to go back to kindergarten.

1+1=2 Is a priori. Numbers do not exist in nature.
Incorrect, before anyone could do that, they have to FIRST be 'told' what one, two, plus, and equals means. Only then can they perform such operations, thus a-posteriori.

a posteriori [ey po-steer-ee-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, -awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence.
Compare a priori (def 1).
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience.
Compare a priori (def 2).

a priori [ey prahy-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, ey pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee, ah pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation.
Compare a posteriori (def 1).
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait.
Compare a posteriori (def 2).
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic:
an a priori judgment.

Of course I'm sure that you'd like to believe that you were born with the knowledge of all of the world in your little pea brain, but in fact you were programmed with every bit of knowledge contained in that pea you call a brain, by all your teachers, thus ANYTHING your ineptness can do with it is 100% a-posteriori. No your little pea is not a conduit connected to the whole of universal knowledge. We're simply parrots, mimics that are fed what we're told is true, then we puke it back up, much like a penguin or other such birds. So you my friend are simply a recording device, and I find it utterly amazing that your pea can contain such quantities of BS.

Boy, we're a couple of pricks, aren't we?
I can always count on you to fight fire with fire.

Now fuck off back under the rock you live in, before I turn the light back on.

Hey I'm not a fucking insect, I'm a damn mushroom!!! And don't you forget it, (pea brain)!

~Not only a moron but a stupid one.

[SpheresOfBalance]

You need to go back to kindergarten.

1+1=2 Is a priori. Numbers do not exist in nature.
Incorrect, before anyone could do that, they have to FIRST be 'told' what one, two, plus, and equals means. Only then can they perform such operations, thus a-posteriori.

a posteriori [ey po-steer-ee-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, -awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from particular instances to a general principle or law; based upon actual observation or upon experimental data: an a posteriori argument that derives the theory from the evidence.
Compare a priori (def 1).
2. not existing in the mind prior to or independent of experience.
Compare a priori (def 2).

a priori [ey prahy-awr-ahy, -ohr-ahy, ey pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee, ah pree-awr-ee, -ohr-ee]
adjective
1. from a general law to a particular instance; valid independently of observation.
Compare a posteriori (def 1).
2. existing in the mind prior to and independent of experience, as a faculty or character trait.
Compare a posteriori (def 2).
3. not based on prior study or examination; nonanalytic:
an a priori judgment.

Of course I'm sure that you'd like to believe that you were born with the knowledge of all of the world in your little pea brain, but in fact you were programmed with every bit of knowledge contained in that pea you call a brain, by all your teachers, thus ANYTHING your ineptness can do with it is 100% a-posteriori. No your little pea is not a conduit connected to the whole of universal knowledge. We're simply parrots, mimics that are fed what we're told is true, then we puke it back up, much like a penguin or other such birds. So you my friend are simply a recording device, and I find it utterly amazing that your pea can contain such quantities of BS.

Boy, we're a couple of pricks, aren't we?
I can always count on you to fight fire with fire.

Now fuck off back under the rock you live in, before I turn the light back on.

Hey I'm not a fucking insect, I'm a damn mushroom!!! And don't you forget it, (pea brain)!

~Not only a moron but a stupid one.

So says the pea brain!

[PeteOlcott]

The common sense understanding of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. From now on referred to as CTT.
If the CTT is true,what does it refer to? Another CTT? Depending on your perspective that is a tautology or an infinite regress. So what is truth?
PS;The CTT is the theory that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.

My own post has not been approved yet so I have to reply with this link:

Mathematical Mapping Theory of Truth
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic ... 009BFT-fKg

[creativesoul]

Truth is central to all thought/belief and statements thereof. Understanding consists entirely of thought/belief. Thus, truth is central to understanding. It is presupposed within thought/belief. It is presupposed within logical premisses. Logic itself presupposes truth as correspondence to fact/reality/states of affairs/events/etc. I would strongly argue that meaning itself presupposes truth as correspondence, but that is another thread altogether. I digress...

When asking the question "What is truth?" all sensible answers will follow from how the term "truth" is being defined. Simple enough. There are obviously competing theories/definitions and/or 'conceptions' of "truth". The thread itself shows this clearly. Some here take truth as correspondence, others take truth as coherence, others as both of those. It has been used as an equivalent to fact(as states of affairs), reality, and/or actuality, and also as a synonym for belief. Seems that others use the term to mean a true statement, while some others refer to valid conclusions. Major problems arise ans will continue to arise as long as the participants here do not keep these different senses distinct from one another. One cannot switch back and forth between different senses(definitions) and expect to get anywhere. Doing that is actually an equivocation fallacy.

So, how do we wade through all this in order to make sense of it all???

Well, I just began that very process by recognizing and identifying one underlying problem, that of competing definitions/conceptions of "truth". All of these are sensible, if by that I mean that they're all examples of different common usages. People do, in fact, use the term in all of these ways. So, they're all meaningful uses of the term "truth". In order to further discriminate, we must perform a comparative assessment of each conception. This will allow us to be able to identify and recognize the different shortcomings of each. So, if we replace the term "truth" in the OP's question with any and all of the competing definitions, some clarity will begin showing itself...

What is correspondence to fact/reality?
What is coherence?
What is a true statement?
What is belief?
What is a valid conclusion?

The point I'm making here is that so many of the participants have been addressing and/or answering the question "What is truth?", when careful scrutiny ought compel us to be answering the above questions instead.

[creativesoul]

This bit is straight-forward...

If truth is correspondence with fact/reality, then it has a set of necessary preconditions. It is not a composite, such as apple pie. Rather, it is a relationship between thought/belief and/or statements thereof and fact/reality; the case at hand; the way things are; the world, etc. So, truth, in this sense, cannot be prior to thought/belief for it requires it, otherwise it is missing one half of it's relationship. Depending upon one's conception of thought/belief, correspondence can be prior to language - if and when thought/belief is. On my view, that is clearly the case. So, in this framework, thought/belief and statements thereof are what can be true/false. They are true when they correspond to fact/reality(the case at hand, the way things are, etc.) and false when they do not. This is the most common understanding of truth. It is easily understood, and quite simple to formalize. Tarski's T-schema does it quite well, although he didn't intend upon demonstrating truth as correspondence. Someone in this thread earlier employed it as well with "Snow is white". Below is the long version, for it shows more of what's necessary...

"The cat is on the mat" is a true statement of thought/belief if, and only if, the cat is on the mat.

Now, look how simple and well the above explains the truth conditions of a statement. It, quite simply, doesn't get any easier to grasp. That is the beauty of it. The statement is on the left of 'if and only if', and what must be the case in order for the statement to be true is on the right. It is worth noting here, that this particular conception of truth is more than capable of taking account of that which is prior to language(assuming one has a good grasp upon thought/belief).

[creativesoul]

If truth is coherence, then all coherent(consistent) arguments would be true. It is well-known that an argument can be both perfectly coherent and false(The Flying Spaghetti Monster immediately come to mind). Truth cannot be false. Coherent arguments can. Thus, coherency is insufficient for truth. This is also why we seek sound arguments rather than just valid ones. To be clear, coherency measures validity(following the rules of correct inference). So, here we can clearly establish that the notion of logical truth is a misnomer. It's centuries old, and apparently old habits die hard... unfortunately so in this case.