Definition of truth

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:35 am

What is truth?I tried to define it and failed.I am also not satisfied with definitions of Aristotle and Traski.Can anybody come up with an acceptable definition for truth?

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:43 am

So you think Aristotle failed and Tarski failed and you want better definitions from the likes of us? Maybe if you could say a little bit about why you think their definitions are lacking, it would help put it in context for us.

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 11:44 am

ST88 wrote:So you think Aristotle failed and Tarski failed and you want better definitions from the likes of us? Maybe if you could say a little bit about why you think their definitions are lacking, it would help put it in context for us.

Why,dont you believe that you can define it better than somebody who lived 2000 years ago?

You could have found some definition from many books.There are umpteen definitions of truth floating around.

Aristotle's definition said "If a statement corresponds to reality,it is truth".

This definition was unacceptable since reality is subjective.Further a statement can never correspond to reality,it can correspond only to another statement.Reality differes from person to person,culture to culture.

Tarski said "snow is white is true,if and only snow is white"

Jackson, Oppy and Smith 1994 criticized it as follows:

"Now, does snow is white refer to a sentence or a proposition? If, on the one hand, we take (7) to be about a sentence, then, assuming (7) can be interpreted as making a necessary claim, (7) is false. On the face of it, after all, it takes a lot more than snow's being white for it to be the case that ‘snow is white’ is true. In order that ‘snow is white’ be true, it must be the case not only that snow is white, it must in addition be the case that ‘snow is white’ means that snow is white. But this is a fact about language that (7) ignores. On the other hand, suppose we take snow is white to denote a proposition; in particular, suppose we take it to denote the proposition that snow is white. Then the theory looks to be trivial, since the proposition that snow is white is defined as being true just in case snow is white. In short, the deflationist is faced with a dilemma: take deflationism to be a theory of sentences and it is false; take it to be a theory of propositions, on the other hand, and it is trivial. "

reference:Jackson, F. , Oppy, G. and Smith, M. ‘Minimalism and Truth Aptness’, Mind, Vol 103, No 411

starseyer · Post by **starseyer** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:45 pm

Truth is what doesn't go away if you cease to believe in it.

In other words, truth=reality. IMHO

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:28 pm

starseyer wrote:Truth is what doesn't go away if you cease to believe in it.
In other words, truth=reality. IMHO

Reality is always subjective.So what is true to you isnt true for another person.Hence this definition isnt correct.

starseyer · Post by **starseyer** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:46 pm

sin_is_fun wrote:
starseyer wrote:Truth is what doesn't go away if you cease to believe in it.
In other words, truth=reality. IMHO
Reality is always subjective.So what is true to you isnt true for another person.Hence this definition isnt correct.

I have to disagree here. Reality is objective. Perceptions of reality are subjective.

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Thu Jun 30, 2005 8:01 pm

starseyer wrote: I have to disagree here. Reality is objective. Perceptions of reality are subjective.

you are correct.But there is a small catch to it.I leave it now since it is not relevent to this thread.

As you said truth is always a perception of reality.Without an obervor to make a statement there is no truth.The statement made by the observor will always be his perception of reality.Another person will compare it to his perception of reality.If they match he will call it as truth.Else he will call it as false.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 7:24 am

sin_is_fun wrote:
starseyer wrote: I have to disagree here. Reality is objective. Perceptions of reality are subjective.
you are correct.But there is a small catch to it.I leave it now since it is not relevent to this thread.

As you said truth is always a perception of reality

Not to put words into her mouth, or speak on her behalf, but I don't think she said that truth is the perception of reality. I think she said that's something else entirely.

Without an obervor to make a statement there is no truth.

Why? Do things not exist if we don't make statements about them?

And what exactly are they making statements about if not something that truly exists?

sin_is_fun · Post by **sin_is_fun** » Fri Jul 01, 2005 12:18 pm

Corvus wrote:
Without an obervor to make a statement there is no truth.
Why? Do things not exist if we don't make statements about them?

And what exactly are they making statements about if not something that truly exists?

Reality exists whether or not we make statements about it.But truth can only be a property of our statements and not a property of reality.Reality doesnt have a property called as truth.Thus

Reality cannot be true or untrue.
our statements on reality can only be true or untrue.

Thus

Without statements there is no truth.
Without an observor there are no statements.
without observor there is no truth.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Jul 02, 2005 10:53 pm

sin_is_fun wrote:Reality exists whether or not we make statements about it.But truth can only be a property of our statements and not a property of reality.Reality doesnt have a property called as truth.Thus

Reality cannot be true or untrue.
our statements on reality can only be true or untrue.

Thus

Without statements there is no truth.
Without an observor there are no statements.
without observor there is no truth.

This is very close to the Logical Positivist position, if I recall correctly. Your definition of truth, it seems to me, is limited to the observations of the observer. If Reality is neither true nor false, then what property does the opposite of Reality hold? If we were to make a statement about reality that is false, then the statement would be false. But the idea behind the statement, the referent of the statement would also be false. Now, what if we were to make a true statement about a false situation? Then the statement would be true because the referent was false. If we can make this distinction, why would Reality be any different from Anti-Reality?

I would argue that Reality=Truth, and that truth is discovered in addition to being stated. In order for something to be True, no statement need be made.

Unless, of course, your definition of Truth is intentionally limited to what we humans can perceive and conceive. Then we are talking about two different things.