I think we’d all agree that words can have different meanings depending on the context. When I use the words “true” or “truth” they have one of two different meanings. — EricH
“1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. — EricH
I don’t think you’re saying that we can use the word “truth” in place of using the phrase “what simply is”. If that were the case then there are much better words - “reality”, “the universe”, existence”, etc - which do not have any additional implication. — EricH
I read this and am reminded of the old joke about The Lone Ranger and Tonto (it’s considered a bit racist these days).Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" and "True despite my knowledge or beliefs" — Philosophim
For purposes of this discussion I will take it that this is analogous to The Correspondence Theory of Truth (my first definition/usage of the word “truth”). So we agree on this usage.Basically we use true for, "True as I know/believe it" — Philosophim
Aargh! No! I am not qualified (and have no interest) in discussing Kant, but I am confident in saying that Peano Arithmetic (in fact all mathematics) is a human invention in which we manipulate symbols within specific rules. Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false.“1+1=2” is only true within the context of a mathematical framework - e.g. Peano Arithmetic. — EricH
Agreed. Kant came up with two terms that attempted to capture these differences. Analytic knowledge is true by virtue of being, — Philosophim
If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:No, I actually was using it as another synonym. — Philosophim
Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition.Perhaps the word 'truth' has becomes such a broadly applied word in culture that it is difficult to use it in a distinct and clear context. The problem is that if we don't lock it in to clear and distinct contexts, then it becomes what I like to call a 'wiggle word'. — Philosophim
I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree.Belief, knowledge and truth are not the same thing. — Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? If so, then you’ve introduced yet a 4th usage of the word “truth” and I strenuously disagree. There ain’t no such thing as “Truth itself”. Or perhaps you are opposed to using the word “Truth” in this way? In which case I agree.As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word. — Philosophim
As I use them, the words “true” and “false” are adjectives which describe properties of statements/propositions. The words “truth” and “falsehood” are the noun forms of the adjectives; they identify statements/propositions that have the property of being true/false. — EricH
Any discussion of wisdom, knowledge, belief etc is a separate topic which has no bearing on the semantics of the word “truth”. — EricH
1) Statements are true if they accurately (or as accurately as possible) describe the real world (AKA reality, the universe, existence, what is, etc) This is commonly referred to as the Correspondence Theory of Truth.
2) Mathematical/logical propositions are true if they follow the rules of a particular mathematical/logical framework -e.g. Peano Arithmetic. Any particular proposition can be true in one mathematical system and false in another. — EricH
Mathematics is not true by virtue of being. Mathematical statements/propositions are true or false within the rules/context of a particular framework, but the words “true” and “false” do not apply to the field of mathematics (the manipulation of numbers and symbols). Mathematics is neither true not false. — EricH
If you are using the word “truth” as a synonym for “existence” then the following sentence is semantically correct:
“According to our best scientific knowledge, truth came into existence 13.8 billion years ago” — EricH
Absolutely! That is exactly what you are doing here - you are giving the word “truth” an additional context that converts it into a “wiggle word”. There are already two clear & distinct contexts in which we can use the word “truth”, there’s no compelling need to give it this third definition. — EricH
I would consider “knowledge” and “belief” to be wiggle words - and as I stated they have nothing to do with the point I am trying to communicate. There are endless discussions out here on TPF debating the meanings/usages of these words - and it seems like no two people can agree. — EricH
As long as we remember that belief and knowledge are assessments of what is true, and not 'Truth' itself, its a bit easier to sort out a solid meaning of truth that more easily avoids being a wiggle word.
— Philosophim
I’m not sure what you’re saying here. You’ve capitalized ’Truth’. Are you asserting that there is this, umm, thing out there called Truth? — EricH
↪Philosophim Reality is what it is. Truth is why it is what it is. — EnPassant
If we have captured causality — Philosophim
I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich
I don't think that's physically possible. Like, how would you even do it? Do you set up a sort of trap to catch it? — Arcane Sandwich
I think we're having a semantic disagreement. — Philosophim
Let me be more specific — Philosophim
Why should I let you do such a thing? Let's start with that. — Arcane Sandwich
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.