Philosophy Now Forum

If truth is a true statement, then we have an issue explaining what exactly makes statements true rather than false. Inevitably, this sense of "truth" presupposes truth as correspondence, albeit quite possibly entirely unbeknownst to the speaker. It is very common to say something along the lines of "That's the truth!" when one is referring to a true statement(or... a statement they believe to be true). It is almost just as common, from my experience anyway, for the average English speaker to have little to no idea exactly what makes statements true, although most folk can readily distinguish obvious true statements from obvious false ones. Again, I'll use an old favorite...

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

So, when it is the case that the cat is on the mat, nearly everyone who knows what "The cat is on the mat" means also know that it's true. The same holds good regarding knowing it's false when it is not the case that the cat is on the mat.

If truth is belief, then all belief is true, even when we have two beliefs that are the negation of one another. This again, is a common use of the term "truth". We can often witness two folk with contrary beliefs about something speak in terms of your truth and/or my truth. Now, obviously if I believe the cat is on the mat, and someone else believes that the cat is not on the mat, then one of us is wrong. One of us holds false thought/belief about fact/reality. Both of those beliefs cannot be simultaneously true.

Thought/belief is necessary but insufficient for truth(as correspondence). Don't be misled here. That is an existential claim, which basically says that correspondence between thought/belief and fact/reality requires both thought/belief and fact reality. Without either, there can be no correspondence. That is not to say that anyone in particular must believe 'X' in order for 'X' to be true. However, the very act of stating 'X' necessary presupposes belief, regardless of whether or not the speaker believes 'X'.

If truth is fact/reality and/or actuality, then truth is equivalent to the way things are, the case at hand, the world, states of affairs, etc. This is an historically popular usage of the term, and it's the sense in which one can intelligibly say that "The truth is out there". Folk who talk about finding out the truth, could be seeking for true explanations(statements) or seeking to figure out the way things(actually) are, etc. Folk are looking for the truth. Here again, it seems obvious that using "truth" to mean fact/reality; the world; states of affairs; etc., finds itself unable to take account and/or explain what makes statements true without invoking correspondence.

Although, I neglected this earlier, there is also another somewhat popular notion of "truth". Some continentals(Heiddy, and the like) use truth as aletheia, which amounts to unconcealedness, and/or uncoveredness or something along those lines. Hopefully any Heidegger fans will forgive my torture of his view here, if that should be the case. I'm not that familiar with his jargon/conceptual scheme/linguistic framework(whatever you'd like to call it). It seems to me, that this notion is very much like the layman notion of discovery. Heiddy doesn't deal with the relationship between thought/belief and statements thereof and fact/reality, because his approach and philosophy holds that we cannot get beneath language. In other words, unless I've got it all wrong here(which is certainly possible) Heiddy and other continentals place metaphysical and/or ontological primacy upon language. As a result, a pure logical consequence, such viewpoints cannot take account of non and/or prelinguistic thought/belief and all that that entails... On my view, that is a fatal flaw of an otherwise beautiful, stylish, but emaciated viewpoint.

So, did I miss any???

Oh yeah... now I remember. The OP(if my memory serves me well) made the claim that truth as correspondence was circular or something along those lines. I would be more than willing to engage that notion/charge. It's popular surely, as is the question "Is that true?", which is the go-to method for objecting to theories of "truth" upon the grounds of circularity. It can be shown to be ill-conceived, and aimed at the wrong target. I would be willing to argue that any such objection, academic ones especially, involve an equivocation fallacy that amounts to "is true" being conflated with "truth".

Truth is a set of propositions which can describe subject matter well, such as laws of nature. TRUTH or absolute truth is set of facts that truth is derived from, such as mathematics.

creativesoul wrote:[b

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

"The cat is on the mat " can only be a "true statement' if a true statement is one that corresponds to a subjective belief about the world that is derived from inductive reasoning.

This is because there is no objective or deductive method of ever determining "if, and only if, the cat is on the mat."

A_Seagull wrote:

creativesoul wrote:[b

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

"The cat is on the mat " can only be a "true statement' if a true statement is one that corresponds to a subjective belief about the world that is derived from inductive reasoning.

This is because there is no objective or deductive method of ever determining "if, and only if, the cat is on the mat."

I'm not following this line of objection. Correspondence requires thought/belief and fact/reality(states of affairs). You could call the former 'subjective' and the latter 'objective', but I personally see no need to invoke that dichotomy here, for it cannot possibly take account of that which is neither and requires both. Correspondence is one such thing.

The bit about inductive reasoning as compared to deductive reasoning is misleading at best. We can indeed deduce that a cat is on the mat. We can most certainly establish and/or determine that. We can place a cat on a mat. We can remove one as well. We can look for ourselves to see whether or not there is a cat on the mat. We can also know that there is or is not a cat on the mat by virtue of looking to see. So, again...

I'm not seeing the relevance of your objection.

bahman wrote:Truth is a set of propositions which can describe subject matter well, such as laws of nature. TRUTH or absolute truth is set of facts that truth is derived from, such as mathematics.

Equivocating the term "truth" leads to incoherence/self-contradiction and/or circularity. If truth is a set of propositions and absolute truth is a set of facts that the aforementioned set of propositions is derived from, then do the propositions require being true? If so, then what exactly makes them true? Does the phrase "describe subject matter well" require the description to be true? I mean, can a description do both, describe a subject matter well and be false?

creativesoul wrote: Equivocating the term "truth" leads to incoherence/self-contradiction and/or circularity. If truth is a set of propositions and absolute truth is a set of facts that the aforementioned set of propositions is derived from, then do the propositions require being true?

The set of propositions should be true because propositions could depend on each other.

creativesoul wrote: If so, then what exactly makes them true?

Only by observing reality.

creativesoul wrote: Does the phrase "describe subject matter well" require the description to be true?

The subject matter is our only tool to distinguish between truth and untruth.

creativesoul wrote: I mean, can a description do both, describe a subject matter well and be false?

That is not possible if our frame work (consistent set of propositions) is anomaly (something which cannot be explained within a framework ) free .

bahman wrote:

creativesoul wrote: Equivocating the term "truth" leads to incoherence/self-contradiction and/or circularity. If truth is a set of propositions and absolute truth is a set of facts that the aforementioned set of propositions is derived from, then do the propositions require being true?

The set of propositions should be true because propositions could depend on each other.

Propositions could depend on each other and be false. Thus, such dependence is insufficient for truth.

creative:

If so, then what exactly makes them true?

Only by observing reality.

Observing reality is something we do in order to verify/falsify propositions. Again, it is clear that observing reality doesn't make a proposition true.

creative:

Does the phrase "describe subject matter well" require the description to be true?

The subject matter is our only tool to distinguish between truth and untruth.

I'm not following this at all. Doesn't make sense at all given what's been said between us thus far.

creative:

I mean, can a description do both, describe a subject matter well and be false?

That is not possible if our frame work (consistent set of propositions) is anomaly (something which cannot be explained within a framework ) free .

So. Describing a subject matter well is equivalent to a true description. What criterion can you provide which, when met by a description, counts as being a true description, and/or describing a subject matter well?

creativesoul wrote:

A_Seagull wrote:

creativesoul wrote:[b

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

The bit about inductive reasoning as compared to deductive reasoning is misleading at best. We can indeed deduce that a cat is on the mat. We can most certainly establish and/or determine that. We can place a cat on a mat. We can remove one as well. We can look for ourselves to see whether or not there is a cat on the mat. We can also know that there is or is not a cat on the mat by virtue of looking to see. So, again...

.

How can you 'deduce' that a cat is on the mat? What is the logical process that leads to that conclusion? Is it necessarily deductive in nature?

creativesoul wrote: Propositions could depend on each other and be false.

Not when the set of preposition explain reality well.

creativesoul wrote: Thus, such dependence is insufficient for truth.

I mean propositions could depend on each other so each proposition could not explain reality completely. In this case only set of proposition could be true.

creativesoul wrote: Observing reality is something we do in order to verify/falsify propositions. Again, it is clear that observing reality doesn't make a proposition true.

Once set of propositions is validate by reality then it is true. That is the only criteria we have.

creativesoul wrote: I'm not following this at all. Doesn't make sense at all given what's been said between us thus far.

This should be clear by now. We observe subject matter, reality, and that could validate our framework.

creativesoul wrote: So. Describing a subject matter well is equivalent to a true description.

Yes.

creativesoul wrote: What criterion can you provide which, when met by a description, counts as being a true description, and/or describing a subject matter well?

The only criteria we have is to test the framework against reality. If framework is anomaly free then it is true, otherwise it is false.

A_Seagull wrote:
How can you 'deduce' that a cat is on the mat? What is the logical process that leads to that conclusion? Is it necessarily deductive in nature?

We deduce that there is a cat on the mat without actually looking. Drawing connections, associations, and/or correlations between 'objects' of physiological sensory perception. I do not know what sense of "necessarily" you're using here.


How are these questions germane to what I've been arguing?