What is truth?

[creativesoul]

Aristotle 's conception equates true statements and truth. To say is to make a statement. To say about what is that it is, is to make a true statement about what is.

[creativesoul]

Hobbes, you're equivocating between different senses of "truth". So, if you're saying that there is much more to the use of "truth" than correspondence, I would agree. If you're likewise saying that there's much more to sensibly being called "true" than correspondence with/to fact/reality I would also agree.

[Hobbes' Choice]

How do you define "fact"?

Facts are states of affairs; events; the case at hand; the way things are; the way things were; etc.

No. Facts are statements designed to describe states of affairs. The difference is crucial as that's where all the problems occur.

[raw_thought]

Then "fact" is the same as truth. Therefore your definition of truth ( as facts) is a tautology. Truth is truth.
That was addressed to creativesoul.

[raw_thought]

The question for the Correspondence theory of truth is how does a proposition correspond to a reality, not how a proposition corresponds to a representation of reality.

[creativesoul]

How do you define "fact"?

Facts are states of affairs; events; the case at hand; the way things are; the way things were; etc.

No. Facts are statements designed to describe states of affairs. The difference is crucial as that's where all the problems occur.

I don't have those problems...

[raw_thought]

How does the ink pattern ( dog) correspond ( resemble) the concept dog. And how does the concept "dog" resemble an actual dog. Similarly, the concept "book" lacks a particular size, mass, color, language, title... Nothing resembles that!

[creativesoul]

Then "fact" is the same as truth. Therefore your definition of truth ( as facts) is a tautology. Truth is truth.
That was addressed to creativesoul.

You've no idea what you're talking about here. I've never defined truth as facts....

[raw_thought]

And if our representations of reality ( concepts etc) do not resemble reality, how can they have any explanatory power?

[creativesoul]

How does the ink pattern ( dog) correspond ( resemble) the concept dog. And how does the concept "dog" resemble an actual dog. Similarly, the concept "book" lacks a particular size, mass, color, language, title... Nothing resembles that!

The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?

[raw_thought]

"
It's as simple as a definition gets. Truth is correspondence with/to fact reality."
creativesoul

[raw_thought]

How does the ink pattern ( dog) correspond ( resemble) the concept dog. And how does the concept "dog" resemble an actual dog. Similarly, the concept "book" lacks a particular size, mass, color, language, title... Nothing resembles that!

The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?

OK, then leave any discussion about the philosophy of language or epistemology.
You should read Nagel about how the connection of words to concepts and concepts to reality is EXTREMELY problematic.
Why do you post here if you hate philosophy?

[creativesoul]

Since there seems to be a reading comprehension issue...

On my view, truth is correspondence.

[raw_thought]

Since there seems to be a reading comprehension issue...

On my view, truth is correspondence.

Yes, on your part. So OK you now define truth as it is described by the correspondence theory of truth.

[creativesoul]

The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?

OK, then leave any discussion about the philosophy of language or epistemology.
You should read Nagel about how the connection of words to concepts and concepts to reality is EXTREMELY problematic.
Why do you post here if you hate philosophy?

Reading Nagel is unnecessary. The problems all involve the ongoing and pervasive ill-conceived notions of thought/belief, meaning, and truth. When those are gotten right, all the rest falls in place, including an immensely broad scope of explanatory power...