The meaning of True

[average]

I think there has to exist a dualistic split for True to have any meaning. The subjective - objective split has to occur. There also has to be a statement or proposition from the subjective point of view. And then there has to be a comparison between the subjective proposition and the objective state. If both synchronize, then we call that true. I think this is how it usually works.

But isn't it the case that we have no access to the objective state, if there is such a thing, in reality what we are doing is comparing or contrasting two subjective states that our minds have constructed. So then what is True is nothing more than equating one state of mind with another.


What does True mean? Any takers?

[Dan Rowden]

In strict terms, true and false really only have meaning within the context of logical propositions with dualistic outcomes. In most other contexts we need to employ different terms.

[average]

Are you saying the only truths are logical ones?

[Dan Rowden]

In the sense of true/false dichotomies, yes.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

I'm more-or-less a fan of good ol' correspondence theory. It's true that 'snow is white' if snow is indeed white. A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality.

Edit: I should add that any theory of truth is going to be somewhat wacky on the face of it, as explanations come to an end somewhere. 'Truth' is like any other word and its meaning is determined by how it is used. Everyone who uses it in day-to-day speech knows exactly what it means. So, really, I accept two different theories of truth (one is somewhat ironically 'anti-theoriest'). Although, they both arise out of different manners of speaking, so I think I'm allowed.

[Sapius]

I'm more-or-less a fan of good ol' correspondence theory. It's true that 'snow is white' if snow is indeed white. A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality.

But isn’t it possible that we might be making a mistake in assuming that reality must be something other than what we experience, to begin with?

[dabbason]

is true outside ur two compared?how have u concieved true? true is what is not you

[Diebert van Rhijn]

A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality.

Truth can only be defined accurately by something that lies beyond truth and false *) . Or stated as a given if caution is needed, for example the law of non-contradiction.

If reality would be defined as that what one believes or knows to be "true", or "factual', the idea of an "correspondence with reality" becomes circular and pointless.

If one takes reality to be "the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence", then something corresponding with such totality becomes also pointless, like god or tao.

Everyone who uses it in day-to-day speech knows exactly what it means.

Yeah, sure. Just like everyone knows 'love' and 'suffering' and what they exactly mean. The only problem is: they don't and most won't and die without even knowing what death really means. God bless them!


EDIT: *) Or like Gödel's incompleteness theorems, one has to jump to a 'higher' system to prove the 'truths' of the lower. Truth then becomes ultimately the fundamental construction of any 'system' itself, which is roughly equal to consciousness.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

But isn’t it possible that we might be making a mistake in assuming that reality must be something other than what we experience, to begin with?

It's possible, but I don't know many who are skeptical enough to hold to such a position. Solipsism isn't a theory that a fella can disprove, but I can't bring myself to accept it either.

Diebert,

Truth can only be defined accurately by something that lies beyond truth and false *) .

Yeah, and that thing is the real world that you exist in and observe every day.

If reality would be defined as that what one believes or knows to be "true", or "factual', the idea of an "correspondence with reality" becomes circular and pointless.

That's why an idealist who denies the existence of the world cannot form a coherent theory of truth. A realist, on the other hand, can go check his fruit basket if he wants to know if it's true that he has an apple.

If one takes reality to be "the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence", then something corresponding with such totality becomes also pointless, like god or tao.

I don't know what you mean by this.

Yeah, sure. Just like everyone knows 'love' and 'suffering' and what they exactly mean. The only problem is: they don't and most won't and die without even knowing what death really means. God bless them!

Everyone knows what the words mean in a general sense, as the meaning of a term is its use. You may disagree with them on how any given term should be used, but there is no fact of the matter on that sort of thing. Folks who believe in an afterlife may be wrong, but they're hardly using the term 'death' wrong. They just think it entails something different than you do. They envision a different state of affairs (a different potential world) following from the end of life.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

Truth can only be defined accurately by something that lies beyond truth and false *) .

Yeah, and that thing is the real world that you exist in and observe every day.

Now you equal reality with whatever is observed? Happy dreams!

A realist, on the other hand, can go check his fruit basket if he wants to know if it's true that he has an apple.

But coherent theories of truth do not revolve around the question "do you have an apple"? That question has a context, like agreement about what apples are, the state of possession and agreement about its relevance. A very narrow context undisputed by all the participants in the imagined 'fruit basket deal'.

Coherent theories of truth do not try to predict the weather for you either. So what? They're not supposed to.

If one takes reality to be "the totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence", then something corresponding with such totality becomes also pointless, like god or tao.

I don't know what you mean by this.

That's just another common definition of 'reality' I addressed, showing that it's here also quite tricky to define something as 'corresponding with reality' as a matter of fact.

Everyone knows what the words mean in a general sense, as the meaning of a term is its use

It's very vague to most. You should have found out by now that all what most people have is some vague collection of strong sensations, difficulties ('harsh reality') combined what is being told to them by perceived authorities around them. This collection differs wildly amongst people and is a reason for many of the conflicts around us. Also not many people question the notions they have, they don't notice how peculiar and 'localized' their perception is about life, death, value, etc.

Folks who believe in an afterlife may be wrong, but they're hardly using the term 'death' wrong.

That's not what I meant. Most people think that death is the end of their existence on Earth. But this implies they know exactly what they are as 'Earthling' and have a clear concept of their beginnings too. But that is not well defined for most people at all.

[DHodges]

I'm more-or-less a fan of good ol' correspondence theory. It's true that 'snow is white' if snow is indeed white. A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality.

This seems intuitively like a reasonable approach. But doesn't it shift the difficulty from defining 'truth' to defining 'correspondence'? Since a state of affairs and a statement about that state of affairs are different kinds of things, doesn't it come down to an opinion as to whether that statement is accurate or properly represents that state of affairs?

'Snow is white' is generally true. We might say 'snow is white' in the sense that it is the general nature of snow, but also we could say it is false, as there are some exceptions (e.g., yellow snow in rural areas, black snow in urban areas).

And what is or is not considered snow is a matter of usage. Sleet or hail might be considered to be included in the term 'snow', or not.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Diebert,

Now you equal reality with whatever is observed? Happy dreams!

Observation and a priori inference from observation is all we've got to determine things about the world. If such methods aren't entirely reliable (and they're not) then we simply have to accept a degree of uncertainty. Nihilism is really the only other option. The mystical thinking of philosophers like Parmenides might have a leg to stand on if it seemed possible to reason at all without observing something in our lifetime. I don't think it is.

But coherent theories of truth do not revolve around the question "do you have an apple"?

I should hope not. A question isn't a proposition. We shouldn't say it's true or false that "do you have an apple?". Now, the proposition "he has an apple" is another matter entirely, and I feel we need to analyze the conditions under which we'd say it's true or false if we want to know what truth is.

That question has a context, like agreement about what apples are, the state of possession and agreement about its relevance. A very narrow context undisputed by all the participants in the imagined 'fruit basket deal'.

Sure. The method by which we can determine if it's true is quite clear. When it isn't clear how we might discover if something is true, maybe we ought to step back and consider if maybe we've let language lead us to confusion.

That's just another common definition of 'reality' I addressed, showing that it's here also quite tricky to define something as 'corresponding with reality' as a matter of fact.

I take an anti-realist approach to ontology, and don't really pretend that there is a fact of the matter as to when we should say that something 'corresponds with reality', but I do think that there is fact concerning what shape the sun is. I'm not even interested in forming a precise and consistent ontological view, as I think all philosophical problems tend to arise out of, and are inflated by, such attempts. That said, I do feel that correspondence theory gets at the most clear, obvious, and intuitive way to think of 'truth'. Even if the semantics of it can be a bit confusing.

It's very vague to most. You should have found out by now that all what most people have is some vague collection of strong sensations, difficulties ('harsh reality') combined what is being told to them by perceived authorities around them. This collection differs wildly amongst people and is a reason for many of the conflicts around us. Also not many people question the notions they have, they don't notice how peculiar and 'localized' their perception is about life, death, value, etc.

People may not fully analyze their beliefs with what you or I would consider sufficient skeptisism, but I think one can only say someone else has 'false' beliefs if they understand what the other individual is trying to say (this often requires a bit of effort), and feels that the state of affairs they report (if any) isn't, wasn't, or won't be the case: depending on whether they report said state of affairs to happen in the past, present or future. Meaning has everything to do with language, and simply understanding what any given term means in any given context isn't sufficient for determining what is true in most cases. Where people can go wrong is in how they imagine the world to be, and not in how they linguistically represent it, except insofar as they make themselves incoherent.

That's not what I meant. Most people think that death is the end of their existence on Earth. But this implies they know exactly what they are as 'Earthling' and have a clear concept of their beginnings too. But that is not well defined for most people at all.

I really don't see how understanding death requires an understanding of a how life begins.


DHodges,

This seems intuitively like a reasonable approach. But doesn't it shift the difficulty from defining 'truth' to defining 'correspondence'? Since a state of affairs and a statement about that state of affairs are different kinds of things, doesn't it come down to an opinion as to whether that statement is accurate or properly represents that state of affairs?

It is entirely a matter of opinion of whether or not any given statement should be used to indicate a particular state of affairs, but one generally speaks of a propositions--that which a statement actually proposes--as being the thing that corresponds, as opposed to the structure of a statement itself. Looking at white snow doesn't affirm the truth of the sounds and scribbles "the snow is white" (whatever that would mean), but rather affirms that a particular way of thinking about matters is correct.

'Snow is white' is generally true. We might say 'snow is white' in the sense that it is the general nature of snow, but also we could say it is false, as there are some exceptions (e.g., yellow snow in rural areas, black snow in urban areas).

I'd say, then, that it is only true if it is taken to propose the more general notion of snow tending to be white.

[Sapius]

EI;

EI: I'm more-or-less a fan of good ol' correspondence theory. It's true that 'snow is white' if snow is indeed white. A proposition is true when it corresponds with reality.

S: But isn’t it possible that we might be making a mistake in assuming that reality must be something other than what we experience, to begin with?

EI: It's possible, but I don't know many who are skeptical enough to hold to such a position. Solipsism isn't a theory that a fella can disprove, but I can't bring myself to accept it either.

Sorry I missed that one. Of course, you do have a choice based on your own reasoning.

[ExpectantlyIronic]

Sapius,

Sorry I missed that one. Of course, you do have a choice based on your own reasoning.

Huh. You just made me think of something that I had forgotten concerning this subject. Solipsism, insofar as anyone has ever believed in it, arises out of a particular way of speaking of matters. The solipsist doesn't reject the existence of apples per se, but rather simply claims that we can't know that they have an existence beyond that of how they are experienced. It's an epistemological position as opposed to an ontological one. One accepts solipsism simply by changing how they use the term 'know', both in their mind's eye and in speech acts. As such, I do have a clear choice in the matter. I just choose not to speak in such a manner, as it seems ultimately way too limiting.