• Monist
    41
    #1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?

    Similar question #2 Can we justify justification?
  • javra
    919
    #1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?Monist

    Since a) we all hold the capacity to lie, b) we are all adults (more or less), and c) the adults that affirm they have never told a lie will most certainly be lying, we can then safely conclude that we all experientially know what lies are. Then, one can start addressing the question by observing that truth is what occurs in the absence of lies - contextually, this within awareness related givens, such as statements and beliefs, regarding what is experienced. (But I acknowledge that in at least a tacit matter all those who have told at least one lie in their lives already knew this.) From this can then be further inferred that delusions, illusion, hallucinations, etc. are a type of self-deception and that truth - being the opposite of deception - will, roughly speaking, be an accordance to that which is non-deceptive; the latter being roughly equivalent to what is termed reality.

    The short version of the same answer: experientially.

    Though not without faults, I yet find this response to be good enough to get the ball rolling.

    As to the second issue, what alternatives to justification are there? Same can be said for reasoning, btw.
  • bongo fury
    272
    #2 Can we justify justification?Monist

    Not, according to Carroll's Tortoise
  • Monist
    41
    So can we say that, truth, originates from, and depends on, assumptions(meant to be true) such as above?
  • javra
    919
    Specify what you take to be the assumptions, please.

    I, btw, don't take the occurrence of experience - be it in general or in particular - to be an assumption.

    (I have to take off for now.)
  • Arne
    515
    #1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?Monist

    good question and of course, the answer is that one cannot. in that sense, truth is that on the basis of which truth is already understood.

    a sense of truth is constitutive of our nature (which does not make us necessarily truthful). we could not make our way about in the world without a sense of truth.
  • Isaac
    2k
    How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?Monist

    How can one formulate a question about truth without knowing what truth is?
  • Arne
    515
    I suspect that knowing and understanding are not synonymous and I would rephrase your question as "how can one formulate a question about truth without an understanding of what truth is?"

    But that is just me being picky as your question is an excellent question.

    In some sense, I think we "live" in the truth (which does not make us truthful). Instead, we have an understanding of truth and we use that understanding to either uncover or conceal the truth.
  • Sir2u
    2k
    It is raining, that is the truth.

    Do you agree with that?
  • Monist
    41
    Seems impossible. Thank you.
  • Monist
    41
    I do not know if I know anything.
  • Monist
    41
    May it be true that questioning(desire for certainty of truth) promises more than answers(meant/designed/forced by logical-, and various theories to be true)?
  • Monist
    41
    Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ?
  • frank
    4.5k
    #1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?Monist

    Do you mean how can one discover or learn what truth is without previously knowing it?
  • Monist
    41
    Yes and no. Lets look from this perspective using logic.

    P) I know what truth is
    P2) I know what truth is
    P<=>P2
    How can I know if this proposition is true, without knowing previously what truth is then?
  • Arne
    515
    Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ?Monist

    yes. you must have some understanding of X in order to formulate a question regarding X. all your question can do is give a deeper understanding than the one you must have to even ask the question.
  • Sir2u
    2k
    I do not know if I know anything.Monist

    So there is your answer, we do not know.
  • Monist
    41
    Sounds hasty..
  • Sir2u
    2k
    Sounds hasty..Monist

    Not really, if you don't know and I don't know there is probably no one that does know. Hence there is no answer or at least no answer that is accepted universally.
  • Monist
    41
    I may know the name Jessica, without knowing Jessica personally, and ask; "What is Jessica?" Is that absurd?
  • Isaac
    2k
    Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ?Monist

    Yes, I think so. What people often think of as an exception to this is, say, if you'd heard a word "pegasus" you might sensibly ask "what is pegasus?". But this is just a linguistic illusion of a problem. What you really mean is to ask about the word 'pegasus', not the actual thing 'pegasus'. You can't ask about the actual thing 'pegasus' without knowing something about what the thing is.

    You could reasonably ask "what do people mean by the word truth?". If you did, my answer would be "really, really...."
  • Arne
    515
    except you already conceded you know the name Jessica. and even if you did not know the name Jessica, you would not ask what a Jessica was if you had not already heard "Jessica" as a reference to some person, place, thing, or group.

    What is a spickledeerfork?
  • NOS4A2
    2.9k


    If we use “true” in the adjectival sense we know what it means. If we use “truth” in the noun sense we do not. Once we change adjectives into nouns we are left trying to search our minds for qualities and other specters that do not exist.
  • Arne
    515
    triangle (the noun).
  • A Seagull
    341
    #1 How can one know what truth is, without knowing what truth is in the first place?Monist

    Truth is a label, in the same way that colour is a label. We learn to recognise what is referred to as a 'blue' object. Then we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue'. It is the same with truth, we label ideas as being 'true' when they have the appearance of being true. Sometimes those ideas can be summarised in statements, so we label those statements as being 'true'.

    How one recognises which ideas have the appearance of being true is another question.
  • NOS4A2
    2.9k


    triangle (the noun).

    What about it?
  • Isaac
    2k
    We learn to recognise what is referred to as a 'blue' object. Then we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue'. It is the same with truth, we label ideas as being 'true' when they have the appearance of being true. Sometimes those ideas can be summarised in statements, so we label those statements as being 'true'.A Seagull

    I don't see how this could be the case. If there was substantial disagreement about which things were 'blue' it would be impossible to learn how to use the word. There is substantial disagreement about what is 'true'.

    Maybe you could use that argument to justify a simplistic correspondence theory of truth. In which case virtually all of philosophy is misusing the word 'true'.
  • Arne
    515
    there is no loss of clarity in going from the adjective triangular to the noun triangle. I suspect there are examples where going from adjective to noun may increase clarity. just saying.
  • creativesoul
    7.9k
    Statements are the sort of thing that can be true/false. "Truth" can be used to denote true statements. "Truth" can be used to denote coherence/consistency. "Truth" can be used to denote validity(following the rules of correct inference). "Truth" can be used to denote belief.

    "Truth" - as a term - has many accepted different meanings.
  • A Seagull
    341
    We learn to recognise what is referred to as a 'blue' object. Then we can categorise all the objects that appear blue as being 'blue'. It is the same with truth, we label ideas as being 'true' when they have the appearance of being true. Sometimes those ideas can be summarised in statements, so we label those statements as being 'true'. — A Seagull
    I don't see how this could be the case. If there was substantial disagreement about which things were 'blue' it would be impossible to learn how to use the word. There is substantial disagreement about what is 'true'.

    Maybe you could use that argument to justify a simplistic correspondence theory of truth. In which case virtually all of philosophy is misusing the word 'true'.
    Isaac

    I think there is substantial agreement about what is 'true' in the world. And I think people actually label things as being true in much the same way. The disagreement arises when people try to make truth out to be some objective property of the world or statements. Whereas truth is necessarily subjective. Without a brain/mind to label ideas or statements as 'true' there would be no truth.
  • NOS4A2
    2.9k


    When we nominalize adjectives we make it function as a noun in our language, and perhaps it does so in our thoughts. The adjective “conscious”, when nominalized, becomes “consciousness”, which has lead many thinkers in search of this quality. When we nominalize adjectives we simply mean “all things with this quality”. Truth could simply be shorthand denoting all things that are true,
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.