What is Truth?

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I say that there are no absolute truth, only individual truths.
The truth is always relative to the one holding the truth in question.
The absolute truth we don't know anything about. Because if we did, it would immediately turn to be an individual truth.

Question: Can a fact be the truth if even the opposite of the fact also is a truth?

Give me an example of that last statement.

Originally posted by Suzianne
However, what messes this up is what has messed up the supposed 'logicians' in this forum before. You cannot end up with a true statement proved from a 'given' that is false.

It all depends on what you mean by 'true'. In my example, whether or not my givens reflect reality is not being taken into account, so the conclusion does not necessarily make a statement about reality. But it is logically true.
Even the word 'proved' takes on two different meanings depending on whether you are talking about logic or reality.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]What is Truth?

"A Proposed Definition of Truth: In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:

• Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism – an ends-vs.-means-type approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.

• Truth is no ...[text shortened]... b]Two Questions:[/b] 1) What [i]is Truth from your perspective? 2) Does Truth matter to you?[/b]

Truth is a relational property of propositions, a relation that holds between some propositions and reality. I do not agree with some of what you copy and pasted, but some of it is close to my view. My view would be some version of correspondence theory, where truth is a relational property of propositions, satisfied by a correspondence relation between the propositional content and articles of reality (such as facts or states of affairs, etc). As to your second question, yes truth matters, since it is an end unto itself in the cognitive process.

There are other senses of 'truth' as well, but I think all of them that I recognize have a similar correspondence theory structure or are truth-functional. For example, we can talk about hypothetical truth, or various other types of conditional truth. For these, truth still relies on correspondences to facts, perhaps in some cases hypothetical facts or meta-facts.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think you have misunderstood me.
I never said logic leads to truth. I said I use the word 'true' in logic.
eg:
1. Suppose all cows are blue.
2. I have a cow.
3. My cow is blue.
Statement 3. is a true statement. This does not mean I actually have a cow in real life, nor does it mean that my cow in real life is blue.

Statement 3 logically follows from 1 & 2, and the argument is logically valid (the conclusion must be true if the premises are each true).

But none of that warrants your claim that "statement 3 is a true statement". That only follows here, as a matter of the logical argument, if both 1 and 2 are true. It is not the case that both 1 and 2 are true in the actual world, since 1 is false (not sure about 2). So 1 and 2 could only be both true in some alternative world, a hypothetical world, or some meta-universe. The truth of 3 here is just conditional on both 1 and 2 being true, perhaps satisfied in some other meta-universe of discourse.

So, I think what you are saying is that you also recognize some hypothetical or alternative versions of 'truth'. This is similar to what I posted regarding hypothetical or conditional truth, etc. So, I guess, I think we agree. But I think your posts are very confusing on this point.

It's also confusing that you refer to 3 here as a logical truth or "logically true". There's simply no reasonable interpretation under which 3 is a logical truth, since logical truths have to be true under all reinterpretations; there must be a certain modal force to their being true. Whereas your 3 is true only under some hypothetical conditions. Logical truths are necessary truths or analytic truths, etc. Logic is not really in the business of ascribing truth, since it mostly deals with the structure of reasoning, not the truth of atomic propositions. However, notwithstanding, there are still some statements that must be true, just in virtue of their logical structure.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Statement 3 logically follows from 1 & 2, and the argument is logically valid (the conclusion must be true if the premises are each true).

But none of that warrants your claim that "statement 3 is a true statement". That only follows here, as a matter of the logical argument, if both 1 and 2 are true. It is not the case that both 1 and 2 are true i ...[text shortened]... g, there are still some statements that must be true, just in virtue of their logical structure.

Tautologies.

Originally posted by Suzianne
However, what messes this up is what has messed up the supposed 'logicians' in this forum before. You cannot end up with a true statement proved from a 'given' that is false.

EDIT: nevermind. You make the right objection here.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Tautologies.

Right, a tautology is true just in virtue of its structure.

Originally posted by LemonJello
It's also confusing that you refer to 3 here as a logical truth or "logically true".

OK, I concede that my post was poorly worded and poorly thought out and possibly untrue.
What I was going for is the distinction between the use of the words 'true' or 'false' in logic where determination of the truth of a statement is determined by analysing the premises and whether or not the statement follows from them vs the use of the same words to refer to a statement about reality where it is more a case of merely comparing the statement with reality rather than following some form of logical deduction.
After some consideration of your comments however I think they are really just different aspects of the same thing and you have done a better job than I.

Originally posted by twhitehead
OK, I concede that my post was poorly worded and poorly thought out and possibly untrue.
What I was going for is the distinction between the use of the words 'true' or 'false' in logic where determination of the truth of a statement is determined by analysing the premises and whether or not the statement follows from them vs the use of the same words to ...[text shortened]... they are really just different aspects of the same thing and you have done a better job than I.

I would agree that they are just different aspects of the same thing in a sense, or at least interrelated. For instance, in your example, in logically deducing 3 from 1 & 2, we still need to know 1 & 2 are both true in order to infer the truth of 3 (that is, for the truth of 3, it is not good enough that the argument is logically valid; the argument must be sound). But, then, this again comes down to comparing 1 with reality and comparing 2 with reality. So basically, it still comes down to these operations of comparing propositions versus reality. However, as I mentioned before, in the cases of hypothetical or conditional truth these operations could be done against a hypothetical reality or a meta-reality as opposed to actual reality.

Originally posted by LemonJello
However, as I mentioned before, in the cases of hypothetical or conditional truth these operations could be done against a hypothetical reality or a meta-reality as opposed to actual reality.

Or in some cases it may be dealing with abstracts - in which case there is no need to compare with any form of reality - as is the case with mathematics.
1. Define a Grundle as a type of blue object.
2. Define a Junbin as a type of Grundle that has three legs.
3. All Junbins are blue.
Statement 3 is true regardless of whether Grundles or Jubins exist in any reality.
Definitions if not incoherent are always true, or rather have no need for a truth value.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Or in some cases it may be dealing with abstracts - in which case there is no need to compare with any form of reality - as is the case with mathematics.
1. Define a Grundle as a type of blue object.
2. Define a Junbin as a type of Grundle that has three legs.
3. All Junbins are blue.
Statement 3 is true regardless of whether Grundles or Jubins exist ...[text shortened]... ality.
Definitions if not incoherent are always true, or rather have no need for a truth value.

This is an exceedingly better example.

We can have no idea if the 'given' statement is true or not. So we assume it is true.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
What is Truth?

"A Proposed Definition of Truth: In defining truth, it is first helpful to note what truth is not:

• Truth is not simply whatever works. This is the philosophy of pragmatism – an ends-vs.-means-type approach. In reality, lies can appear to “work,” but they are still lies and not the truth.

• Truth is not s ...[text shortened]... b]Two Questions:[/b] 1) What [i]is Truth from your perspective? 2) Does Truth matter to you?[/b]

In short, truth is simply telling it like it is; it is the way things really are, and any other viewpoint is wrong. A foundational principle of philosophy is being able to discern between truth and error, or as Thomas Aquinas observed, "It is the task of the philosopher to make distinctions." (Part 1)
____________________________________________________

Challenges to Truth

"Aquinas’ words are not very popular today. Making distinctions seems to be out of fashion in a postmodern era of relativism. It is acceptable today to say, “This is true,” as long as it is not followed by, “and therefore that is false.” This is especially observable in matters of faith and religion where every belief system is supposed to be on equal footing where truth is concerned. There are a number of philosophies and worldviews that challenge the concept of truth, yet, when each is critically examined it turns out to be self-defeating in nature.

The philosophy of relativism says that all truth is relative and that there is no such thing as absolute truth. But one has to ask: is the claim “all truth is relative” a relative truth or an absolute truth? If it is a relative truth, then it really is meaningless; how do we know when and where it applies? If it is an absolute truth, then absolute truth exists. Moreover, the relativist betrays his own position when he states that the position of the absolutist is wrong – why can’t those who say absolute truth exists be correct too? In essence, when the relativist says, “There is no truth,” he is asking you not to believe him, and the best thing to do is follow his advice.

Those who follow the philosophy of skepticism simply doubt all truth. But is the skeptic skeptical of skepticism; does he doubt his own truth claim? If so, then why pay attention to skepticism? If not, then we can be sure of at least one thing (in other words, absolute truth exists)—skepticism, which, ironically, becomes absolute truth in that case. The agnostic says you can’t know the truth. Yet the mindset is self-defeating because it claims to know at least one truth: that you can’t know truth.

The disciples of postmodernism simply affirm no particular truth. The patron saint of postmodernism—Frederick Nietzsche—described truth like this: “What then is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms … truths are illusions … coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.” Ironically, although the postmodernist holds coins in his hand that are now “mere metal,” he affirms at least one absolute truth: the truth that no truth should be affirmed. Like the other worldviews, postmodernism is self-defeating and cannot stand up under its own claim.

A popular worldview is pluralism, which says that all truth claims are equally valid. Of course, this is impossible. Can two claims – one that says a woman is now pregnant and another that says she is not now pregnant – both be true at the same time? Pluralism unravels at the feet of the law of non-contradiction, which says that something cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time and in the same sense. As one philosopher quipped, anyone who believes that the law of non-contradiction is not true (and, by default, pluralism is true) should be beaten and burned until they admit that to be beaten and burned is not the same thing as to not be beaten and burned. Also, note that pluralism says that it is true and anything opposed to it is false, which is a claim that denies its own foundational tenet.

The spirit behind pluralism is an open-armed attitude of tolerance. However, pluralism confuses the idea of everyone having equal value with every truth claim being equally valid. More simply, all people may be equal, but not all truth claims are. Pluralism fails to understand the difference between opinion and truth, a distinction Mortimer Adler notes: “Pluralism is desirable and tolerable only in those areas that are matters of taste rather than matters of truth.” (Part 2 of 4)

http://www.gotquestions.org/what-is-truth.html

Question: Do these statements [in part or whole] clarify or complicate the initial two questions in the original post?

"Two Questions: 1) What is Truth from your perspective? 2) Does Truth matter to you?" (OP)

"The trouble about man is twofold. He cannot learn truths which are too complicated;
he forgets truths which are too simple." Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"The trouble about man is twofold. He cannot learn truths which are too complicated;
he forgets truths which are too simple." Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason

This is a facile quotation. Without examples, it's just waffle. It also sounds like it's coming from someone who is just about to tell people a bunch of things she believes to be true and then sneer at those who don't accept these assertions as "truths" [because they have 'forgotten' or because the assertion is too 'complicated'].

Seeing as Rebecca West is not here to defend her quote, and seeing as you quoted it Grampy Bobby, why don't you offer us a few concrete examples of

[1] truths which are too complicated to learn, and

[2] truths which are too simple to remember.

"The trouble about man is twofold. He cannot learn truths which are too complicated; [The hypostatic union and kenosis]
he forgets truths which are too simple." ["Believe in the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. " (Acts 16:31a)]
Rebecca West, The Meaning of Treason