What Is Truth?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I support a neo-classical correspondence theory of truth: roughly, truth lies in the satisfaction of a correspondence relation between a structured proposition and a fact.

[b]Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what sho ...[text shortened]... ons.

--------------------------------------------
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Is one's view of the nature of truth something that can be either true or false? If so, does that create any extra complication?

Originally posted by RBHILL
Isn't that what Pilate ask Jesus?

Yes. Jesus then promptly referred him to a web site for the answer.

Originally posted by whodey
Yes. Jesus then promptly referred him to a web site for the answer.

Don't blame him. He was a busy man.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Isn't that what Pilate ask Jesus?

Even though it is not recorded what the response of Jesus was, what do you think his response would have been?

Originally posted by whodey
Even though it is not recorded what the response of Jesus was, what do you think his response would have been?

Probably: "If you really want to know, my own approach to the matter is Wittgensteinian. And please don't bracket me with relativists; this is something quite different. Anyway, I won't be any use in the discussion you want to have."

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
who cares? those are dumb questions

Well, obviously I care and some of the other people responding with coherent answers care...at least a little bit.

And by the way, thanks for answering my question, though you probably dont realize you did. Because what defines "dumb"? You have to know what smart is to compare it to, agreed? Most things are defined by their opposites (ex. if everything was smooth, then nobody would know what rough is, and the smoothness they experience would be inconsequential because thats all there is).

Anyway, that is a tangent, but a necessary explanation to my point that you answered my question. Because my 3rd question was is there any absolute standard blablabla....so according to your view, this forum on "truth talk" is truthfully boring. So you answered my question because you subconsciously (for lack of a better word) analized my questions about "truth and its standard" to a standard of your own - namely whether something was dumb or not.

So thank you for your contribution. lol. I hope that made sense.

Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
TRUTHfully, this forum is boreing. i believe in that.

Lol, thanks for your truthful answer...yeah I'll try not to be so uptight. I mean I've always welcomed humor, but not stupidity.

Originally posted by RBHILL
Isn't that what Pilate ask Jesus?

Yes, that is what Pilate asked Jesus. But we cant necessarily prove that Jesus responded, or even had a chance too, as you look at the context.

If you look at other verses in Scripture, Jesus answers it. In John 14:6, it says "[Jesus talking] I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me." Also, in John 8:31b-32, Jesus talking to His disciples says, " 'If youontinue in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.' " Another verse in Ephesians talks about how "the truth is in Jesus."

So according to the Christian standpoint, its quite simple. Jesus is the truth, His teachings are the truth, and the Bible is truth. Only in Him can you find truth about God, the afterlife, morality.....basically what He says is where the bar is set. Jesus is that standard, as my 3rd question asks.

Still the question arises. Can somebody truthfully know something without believing in Jesus, who claims to be the truth? However, that is a slightly different debate, and probably for another discussion.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Heres some questions to think about. (1) What is real? What is truth? Define them witout citing synonyms please. (2) Can truth about reality be known? (3) Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what should we believe in if we a ...[text shortened]... debate, and not get off on too many tangents. Thank you, I appreciate your time and your input.

What is real? I am real

What is truth? Truth is fact in word form.

Can truth about reality be known? - The truth about what ? The reality about what ?

Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? - The truth about what?

If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? I don't understand the question

Or has it already been established? Truth is fact in word form.

Lastly, what should we believe in if we are not sure about the first 3 questions, and why? - That was 6 questions, and i hope you can furnish the relevant information needed to answer them, please .


Was that of any use? i doubt it probably, but the questions were answerwed as best i could.

Originally posted by whodey
Even though it is not recorded what the response of Jesus was, what do you think his response would have been?

He didn't respond because the question was wrong. Pilate asked in search of the 'what' of truth, when the 'Who' of truth was standing before him.

Originally posted by dottewell
My point in posting the link was to make sure you were aware there were several theories of truth which either answer or at least address your questions.

If you really want to know, my own approach to the matter is Wittgensteinian. I think any "metaphysical dicussion" of truth is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept, and how it functio ...[text shortened]... g quite different.

Anyway, I won't be any use in the discussion you want to have.

Hmm, a couple quandries arise I noticed.

You say any metaphysical discussion about truth is based on misunderstandings. Well, because we're on the subject, then even the theory of Wittgensteinian in saying "any metaphysical discussion of truth is based on misunderstandings" is prey to that subjection of the term "any"...which can also refer to "all". So to use Wittgensteinian's logic against itself, then even his theory/discussion/question/(whatever you wanna call it) is also based on misunderstandings. Therefore rendering, his argument meaningless, because it is self-defeating. This cannot be denied, because in order for any theory or philosophy to be true, you must use that same logic either against or to prove itself. And Wittgensteinian's views fail to do so.

Second, I think you bring up an interesting point on the danger of labeling truth as a "thing" which I conclude may be valid. But when you say "How do we work out if X is true?", then let me use that same logic of substitution. If we make true=Z, then the sentence would look like "How do we word out if X is Z?" Without knowing that we substituted the word true, the question is hard to answer because the average person would have no idea what that is asking. So basically my point is that we have to define what Z is before we try to equate or link X to it. Simply put, I do think you bring up an interesting point, but it still does not get aroung the necessity of defining our terms before we question them, and in this case, the debate is on what truth is. So lets stick with that first, shall we?

To conclude, I havent bracketed you in with relativists, because I dont see enough evidence to term you that way. And I would like to hear your response on this, because I think you are/have been of use to this discussion, which I thank you for.

Originally posted by ngeisler88
Hmm, a couple quandries arise I noticed.

You say any metaphysical discussion about truth is based on misunderstandings. Well, because we're on the subject, then even the theory of Wittgensteinian in saying "any metaphysical discussion of truth is based on misunderstandings" is prey to that subjection of the term "any"...which can also refer to "all". ...[text shortened]... cause I think you are/have been of use to this discussion, which I thank you for.

It's 'Wittgenstein'. 'Wittgensteinian' is the adjectival form of Wittgenstein.

Originally posted by huckleberryhound
What is real? I am real

What is truth? Truth is fact in word form.

Can truth about reality be known? - The truth about what ? The reality about what ?

Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? - The truth about what?

If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? I don't understand the question

Or ...[text shortened]...

Was that of any use? i doubt it probably, but the questions were answerwed as best i could.

Thank you! I appreciate your concise answers, which if you read my other posts on this topic is something I struggle with! lol.

But the reason why you failed to answer the questions in the best manner was in your answer of what is truth. Then later to restate your definition that truth is "just a word", and "truth about what"? blablabla....youve got no one to blame but yourself for the lack of relevant answers, because you constricted yourself by your own definition of truth being simply a "word", which inhibited you from answering the other questions properly. "Truth about what?" you may say, that was for you to define in your definition of truth, put a box specifically around what you think truth is, and what you think truth is in relation to.

Originally posted by rwingett
It's 'Wittgenstein'. 'Wittgensteinian' is the adjectival form of Wittgenstein.

I apolopgize lol. I was too lazy to type it, so i just cut and paste...much to my shagrin as I look at it now. lol sorry people.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I support a neo-classical correspondence theory of truth: roughly, truth lies in the satisfaction of a correspondence relation between a structured proposition and a fact.

[b]Is there any absolute standard to weigh truth against? If so, whos right is it to or who should establish that standard? Or has it already been established? (4) Lastly, what sho ...[text shortened]... ons.

--------------------------------------------
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

Thank you for your answer.

But heres a problem I see then. What defines a fact? (which is a tangent I realize but I will relate) In order for a fact to be used, doesnt it or at least shouldnt it be a true fact? That makes sense to me. If youre presenting an argumetn, per say, and citing examples, then wouldnt you want to be citing factually? meaning truthfully?

Heres what I see as a cycling problem -
Truth = is/lies in the satisfaction of a correspondance relation between a strutured proposition and a fact (ie "being a truthfuly fact"😉
So to rewrite it usinig substitution it would look like -
Truth = is/lies in the satisfaction of a correspondance relation between a structured proposition and a fat (ie being a {"true" = is/lies in the satisfaction of a correspondance relation between strutured proposition and a fact (ie being a truthful fact)} fact).....and so on and so forth...

I dunno I could be wrong, I wrote this poste haste, but it just seems to me that you will never be able to define truth, because by your own logic, your assessment will be broken down infinte times in somewhat of a spiraling effect.