Philosophy Now Forum

raw_thought wrote:"Truth is that which is the 'actual' state of affairs!"
Spheresofbalance
Tautology. The truth is the truth.
All tautologies are absolutely true. They are not redundant, in that they can be said to be, not required. For instance, explain to me the idea of a "widow" without being redundant. It's impossible! "A widow is a woman that lost her husband to death." Now identify a widow for yourself without thinking tautologically. You can't. Only once someone knows what something is, can they refer to it tautologically. Which doesn't remove it's truth factor. To define any word is a tautology, yes, even the word tautology. Explain to me the word tautology without being tautological. We're talking about what truth 'is,' and to explain the idea behind any word, redundancy, (a tautology), is required, which is absolutely true.

You shouldn't be attacking me, you should be attacking yourself as the OP for being so ambiguous with your thread title, if you meant other than what those exact words meanings convey.

Truth is that which is the truthful state of affairs.
Can I say, " the truth is X but it isn't the actual state of affairs." Since that makes no sense, saying the opposite is a tautology.
The opposite of a logically impossible definition is a tautology.
And is required so as to say what it is!!!! WHAT IS TRUTH? You didn't ask, "How does one come to know the truth?"

If you would have asked that question, we should be talking about all the theories of recognizing truth. Plus it was you that started the question of tautologies and infinite regressions, I seem to remember you doing so other times as well. What, you currently got some kind of 'thing' for them?

Come on RT you should know by now how I pick at people for their word usage.

raw_thought wrote:"A tautology's truth is certain, a proposition's possible, a contradiction's impossible."
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Your,"Truth is that which is the 'actual' state of affairs!" is not a proposition, it is an attempted definition.

Which is exactly what the question, "What is truth?", begs! Though my def is not attempted, it is the actual definition. The, so called theories of truth are actually theories of how to recognize truths. The definition of truth is, "that which is actually the case." Think about it, if the definition of truth didn't already exist, how could one then come to terms with the theories of how to recognize it? They couldn't!

Origin of truth: Middle English, Old English: before 900; Middle English treuthe, Old English trēowth (cognate with Old Norse tryggth faith).
Origin of correspondence: 1375-1425; late Middle English (< Middle French) < Medieval Latin corrēspondentia.
Origin of tautology: Late Latin, Greek: 1570-80; < Late Latin tautologia < Greek tautología. See tauto-, -logy
Origin of coherence: 1570-80; coher(ent) + -ence
Origin of consensus: 1850-55; < Latin, equivalent to consent (īre) to be in agreement, harmony ( con- con- + sentīre to feel; cf. sense ) + -tus suffix of v. action
Origin of constructivism: 1920-25; constructive + -ism

Sequence is important to understanding, as all knowledge is a-posteriori! It's built layer upon layer over that which came earlier.

Remember, they are the theories "OF" truth!

"The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be considered true, whether by a single person or an entire society, is dealt with by the five most prevalent substantive theories listed below."
.............................................--Wikipedia--

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
I don't have those problems...

We all have those problems.

A fact is not the state of affairs.

Sigh. I don't. Now you're attempting to force an ill-conceived conceptual framework upon someone else. Thanks, but no thanks. History has shown it's weaknesses. As you say, that's where all the problem arise. Witt had something almost right in Tractacus. On my view, facts are states of affairs; events; happenings; the case at hand; the way things are; the things have been; etc.

If you ad read Wit properly you will have recognised my point. All statements are only representations; not the state of affairs by limited human attempts to communicate ideas about the state of affairs.

Spheresofbalance, Tautologies are true in every case. Definitions are tautologies. Tautologies lack explaining power. My point was that you were offering a definition of truth and so therefore gave no explanation as to what it is. Synonyms explain nothing. Looking up "truth" in a thesaurus does not help explain what truth is.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
We all have those problems.

A fact is not the state of affairs.

Sigh. I don't. Now you're attempting to force an ill-conceived conceptual framework upon someone else. Thanks, but no thanks. History has shown it's weaknesses. As you say, that's where all the problem arise. Witt had something almost right in Tractacus. On my view, facts are states of affairs; events; happenings; the case at hand; the way things are; the things have been; etc.

If you ad read Wit properly you will have recognised my point. All statements are only representations; not the state of affairs by limited human attempts to communicate ideas about the state of affairs.

Like I said... I work from a different conceptual scheme. I don't have the problems you speak of.

Spheres is using the very common conception of "truth" as equivalent to reality and/or actuality, depending upon one's metaphysics wrt to direct/indirect perception. Both lack the ability to make sense of what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so.

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Sigh. I don't. Now you're attempting to force an ill-conceived conceptual framework upon someone else. Thanks, but no thanks. History has shown it's weaknesses. As you say, that's where all the problem arise. Witt had something almost right in Tractacus. On my view, facts are states of affairs; events; happenings; the case at hand; the way things are; the things have been; etc.

If you ad read Wit properly you will have recognised my point. All statements are only representations; not the state of affairs by limited human attempts to communicate ideas about the state of affairs.

Like I said... I work from a different conceptual scheme. I don't have the problems you speak of.

You have a problem of basic cognition. Your problems seem to go much further.

creativesoul wrote:Spheres is using the very common conception of "truth" as equivalent to reality and/or actuality, depending upon one's metaphysics wrt to direct/indirect perception. Both lack the ability to make sense of what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so.

"reality" is different then "truth". One can make an untruthful statement about reality.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
If you ad read Wit properly you will have recognised my point. All statements are only representations; not the state of affairs by limited human attempts to communicate ideas about the state of affairs.

Like I said... I work from a different conceptual scheme. I don't have the problems you speak of.

You have a problem of basic cognition. Your problems seem to go much further.

Fallacious and/or invalid counter-arguments aren't acceptable. Let me know when you're ready to say something about what I've been arguing. Until then, thanks for the discourse.

raw_thought wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Spheres is using the very common conception of "truth" as equivalent to reality and/or actuality, depending upon one's metaphysics wrt to direct/indirect perception. Both lack the ability to make sense of what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so.

"reality" is different then "truth". One can make an untruthful statement about reality.

Indeed. One can also make a truthful/true statement. What would a truthful statement be filled with?



Not reality, that's for sure. Coherence? Nah, that only applies to a plurality of statements. Belief? Sure, belief is necessary but insufficient. Meaning? Obviously. A statement must be meaningful in order to say something. Saying something is necessary for both, saying something that is truthful and saying something that is untruthful. Correspondence? Hmmmm.... what exactly does that relationship require?

creativesoul wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

creativesoul wrote:
Like I said... I work from a different conceptual scheme. I don't have the problems you speak of.

You have a problem of basic cognition. Your problems seem to go much further.

Fallacious and/or invalid counter-arguments aren't acceptable. Let me know when you're ready to say something about what I've been arguing. Until then, thanks for the discourse.

Let me know when you get on-thread, and I talk to you.

raw_thought wrote:Spheresofbalance, Tautologies are true in every case. Definitions are tautologies. Tautologies lack explaining power. My point was that you were offering a definition of truth and so therefore gave no explanation as to what it is. Synonyms explain nothing. Looking up "truth" in a thesaurus does not help explain what truth is.

Yes it does, if one understands all those synonyms, it just doesn't explain specific truths. They my friend, are for the finding. As I trust, (believe, have faith in), Science for the most part.

raw_thought wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Spheres is using the very common conception of "truth" as equivalent to reality and/or actuality, depending upon one's metaphysics wrt to direct/indirect perception. Both lack the ability to make sense of what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so.

"reality" is different then "truth". One can make an untruthful statement about reality.

You know that's ridiculous right?

Reality is in fact the truth!

Does one's untruthful statement about reality change reality? Of course not, because reality is the truth!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

raw_thought wrote:

creativesoul wrote:Spheres is using the very common conception of "truth" as equivalent to reality and/or actuality, depending upon one's metaphysics wrt to direct/indirect perception. Both lack the ability to make sense of what sorts of things can be true/false and what makes them so.

"reality" is different then "truth". One can make an untruthful statement about reality.

You know that's ridiculous right?

Reality is in fact the truth!

Does one's untruthful statement about reality change reality? Of course not, because reality is the truth!

So, Spheres...

If reality is the truth, then how is it possible for one to make truthful statements? I mean, a truthful statement is most certainly not full of reality, but yet there are such things as truthful statements.

creative,

Is 'Fire burns.' a truthful statement?