Re: What is truth?
Posted: Mon Oct 17, 2016 10:20 pm
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.
For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
No. Facts are statements designed to describe states of affairs. The difference is crucial as that's where all the problems occur.creativesoul wrote:Facts are states of affairs; events; the case at hand; the way things are; the way things were; etc.raw_thought wrote:
How do you define "fact"?
I don't have those problems...Hobbes' Choice wrote:No. Facts are statements designed to describe states of affairs. The difference is crucial as that's where all the problems occur.creativesoul wrote:Facts are states of affairs; events; the case at hand; the way things are; the way things were; etc.raw_thought wrote:
How do you define "fact"?
raw_thought wrote: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!
You've no idea what you're talking about here. I've never defined truth as facts....raw_thought wrote: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.
The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?raw_thought wrote:raw_thought wrote: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!
OK, then leave any discussion about the philosophy of language or epistemology.creativesoul wrote:The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?raw_thought wrote:raw_thought wrote: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!
Yes, on your part. So OK you now define truth as it is described by the correspondence theory of truth.creativesoul wrote:Since there seems to be a reading comprehension issue...
On my view, truth is correspondence.
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...raw_thought wrote:OK, then leave any discussion about the philosophy of language or epistemology.creativesoul wrote:The better question is what sense does it make to talk like that?raw_thought wrote:
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?