Originally posted by RJHinds
Nope, that is even more confusing. What is a snargle and what is oleg. How do I know such things exists? How can I understood it to be true when I have no idea what it is?
Yeah. You don't get it.
What a snargle and an oleg is irrelevant, It doesn't matter.
As long as the "snargle"
IS "oleg", then the sentence "the snargle is oleg" is true.
Regardless of what "snargle" or "oleg" mean.
As long as snow
IS white, then the sentence "the snow is white" is true.
It doesn't matter what "snow" is or what "white" means, as long as "snow",
(whatever that is) IS "white",
(whatever that means).
Then the sentence "the snow is white" is true.
This is a tautology.
It's saying that "The sentence "Goliath was big" is true if and only if Goliath was big"
Now if you want to prove that Goliath was actually big then you would obviously need to know what Goliath
was and what big meant and you would then have to demonstrate that Goliath met the requirements of bigness.
You would need the evidence that demonstrated that Goliath was big.
Then you would know that the sentence "Goliath was big" WAS true.
However the point is not if these sentences are actually true, it's what they are saying about the essential nature of the
concept of truth.
The general form might go something like this.
The sentence "The Y is X" is true if and only if Y IS X.
As long as we agree that there is a reality of some kind.
Then TRUTH is the nature of that reality.
An idea is TRUE if and only if the concepts behind that idea map accurately onto reality.
Truth is really simple.
Finding it might not be.
Agreeing what it is might not be.
But the essential nature of truth is.
Do you get it now?