From the first three pages...











--

Now mind you...

... this very post that your eyes are in the process of reading, closely follows from a consecutive series of ill-guided and illusory-minded responses that overtly brought my very ability into question. These persistent kinds of overt, accusatory-flavored remarks have been and will continue to be brushed aside. The topic of truth is far too important and the thread has made far too much progress to let a little personal insecurity get in the way. I mean that's what it would be if I were to engage in that aspect of this discussion.

So instead of doing that, I continued making points and counterpoints as they were being raised. That is the goal here, to better understand how truth works - which requires it's being put to use language. Keeping the thread focused has been a trying task. It's been a little difficult at times. Now, if we remember my claims that were just copied and pasted at the top of this post and further consider the fact that the following claims are on this page, this far along...







--

Wow. Trying indeed.



Well that's enough to get the picture from the past few hours alone.




Anyhow, surely the reader can see past all of this muddle. If by "muddle", I mean unnecessarily overcomplicating the discussion to the point of losing place in thought. So, after a month of consistently arguing for my position, after being accused of not have a clue what I was talking about. I offered the following definition on this very thread page.



Imagine that!

abra,

If you're wrong in how your setting truth out, I'm going to tell you. This thread is about truth afterall. If that bothers you my friend, can I suggest that my philosophy thread about truth is not the place for you?

I mean that in the best way possible.

Don't mistake conciseness for rudeness.

It's not the one you're using below.



That is where you go wrong. A description which corresponds is a true description. Truth is that correspondence.



No. A description cannot be called "a truth" and remain coherent. Doing that leads to wrongfully concluding that truth is contingent upon written langauge. We know that that is not the case, as has already been explained several times over. The description satisfies your personal criterion for calling a claim "a truth". It does not make it equal to truth. It is true IFF it corresponds to fact/reality. Truth is that correspondence. If it is true, it obtains and preserves correspondence. You may be claiming that you claim this definition, but your certainly not using it with any meaningful regularity. You may be claiming to have that definition, but your not following it. You're treating truth much more confusedly.

So how do you reconcile this apparent, but yet to have been admitted, contradiction in how you've been setting truth out?

Truth is not "a" correspondence. Truth is not an object. Truth is correspondence.

Get it right, and we can continue.

Ok Micheal, I'm going to just ignore your continued efforts to stir up personal trouble and just address the parts of your posts that address the issues of 'truth'.

From the first three pages...



I disagree. If a statement matches up with the way things are, then it is that statement itself that corresponds to the way things are.

It is the statement that is the correspondence. Without that statement there would be nothing to correspond the state of affairs with.

So the statement (or description) is paramount to this correspondence. It is every bit as much a part of this correspondence as the state of affairs itself.

The correspondence itself cannot even have any meaning without this description. So the statement represents this correspondence with the state of affairs.

This is precisely what I had asked you immediately upon your stating the following definition:

Your definition was posted as follows:



But you can't put a "Period" at the end of that statement because the statement is incomplete as it stands. You haven't yet explained or defined what is it that fact/reality is being corresponded with.

You definition is incomplete as far as I'm concerned.

It should read as follows:

"Truth is a correspondence between a description and fact/reality."

NOW you can proclaim the "Period!"

But you proclaimed the "Period" before you have completed the definition. You didn't say what was being corresponded

~~~~~

Please note: I'm just telling you how I see it. I'm not attempting to 'correct you' you even say that you are 'wrong'. All I'm doing is attempting to explain to you why I personally do not accept your definition as being complete until you have recognized and acknowledged the whole entire correspondence. The description that is being corresponded to reality is every bit as important as the state of affairs itself. Without that description there can be no correspondence.

There would be nothing to correspond with fact/reality if not for this all-important description.

The description is paramount. Without it there is nothing to compare. There is no correspondence without. You can't ignore the description. It's part and parcel to the very correspondence in question.




This is nothing more than just an opinion. And one that I do not personally agree with at all. For many people, fantasies, beliefs in gods, painting abstract pictures, and all sorts of romantic and poetic notions and activities that have absolutely nothing at all to do with 'truth' can indeed be central to their thoughts, beliefs, and happiness. Truth is not necessarily central to anything except possibly the basics of survival if you want to argue that to merely acknowledge the 'truth' that we need to eat and so forth is a recognition of 'truth'.

But it's certainly not central to all human thought and beliefs. In fact, many people believe things that probably are not true at all.



Let's just take the first part of the quote above:

"I hold the position that truth is not man-made, all concepts are, therefore, truth cannot be a concept. I can offer an argument for that position if need be."

I'm sure you could offer an argument for this. I could argue a counter-argument just as easily. Although I already confess that to argue over this would almost be senseless. I personally feel that any conclusions we could possibly arrive at would be highly opinionated and subjective.

First off, I argue that the very descriptions that are a part of the correspondence are indeed man-made concepts. And therefore any 'truths' that we claim to have using this process will, at the very least, be heavily tainted with man-made concepts.

I personally claim that the whole process itself is a man-made concept. The whole idea of corresponding a description with a state of affairs that we erroneously called 'fact/reality', is indeed an idea (i.e. a man made concept).

I realize that you can (and no doubt will) argue that the state of affairs itself is 'objective', and thus that objectivity forces onto us what our descriptions must be if they are to be 'correct' and thus quality as being "true" correspondences.

However, that is lofty idealized thinking. We, as humans, can never be certain that we have ever achieved a 'perfectly correct' correspondence. And therefore, even if the state of affairs has some objective reality, we can still never know whether our imagined "man-made" descriptions have satisfied that correspondence correctly.

So in that sense. OUR TRUTHS are indeed man-made.

All our descriptions are man-made concepts.

~~~~

To keep this short Micheal, I simply wouldn't even bother arguing with you on this point. If you want to believe that truth is not a man-made concept I'd say, "Be my guest". But I would not share that conclusion.

So as far as I'm concerned I would just leave it open to opinion.

You have your opinion that truth is somehow absolute and objective. I have my opinion that we have created this correspondence that we call 'truth' between descriptions and states of affairs and therefore it is indeed a man-made concept with all of the frailties and uncertainties that come with that.

There's simply no sense in us arguing over this because neither one of us is likely to change our views on it.

But at least we understand each others views.

You feel that truth is absolute and not man-made.

I'm happy leaving it as the man-made construct that I see it as.

So let's just leave that one alone.




I have no problems with that. That's exactly correct.

In fact, this is a large part of the reason that I'm totally happy with accepting that our concept of 'truth' is indeed a man-made construct.



That's how we do it.

The only problem is that we can never be sure that we got it right.

So we can never be sure that any 'claim' is truth.

We tend to believe that we can come pretty close to getting it right and we often become over-zealous when we become convinced that we indeed did get it right.

But we can never really know for sure whether we got it right or not.

And as you yourself point out, this becomes even more questionable when the 'final truth' (the final correspondence) is dangling at the end of a long chain of complex correspondences. Any of which could be incorrect!


~~~~~~~~~~~

So in conclusion is appears that we only different on a few details.

Here my summary of where we appear to agree and disagree:

1. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.

We both agree.

2. Period!

We disagree. I disagree that this is the end of the definition.

3. Truth is a correspondence between a man-made description and fact/reality.

We disagree I guess. Because you don't seem to be acknowledging the importance of the other half of the correspondence.

You seem to be dismissing the man-made subjective description as somehow being irrelevant to this "correspondence".

I would just ask you at this point what you are corresponding fact/reality to if not a man-made description?

If you say that Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Period!

Then what is being corresponded to fact/reality?

What is the actual correspondence that you are referring to here?

My definition works because I am corresponding fact/reality to a man-made description of it.

But you haven't stated what you are corresponding fact/reality with.

4a. Truth is not a man-made concept.
4b. Truth is a man-made concept.

We disagree.

You prefer "a", I prefer "b".

I also prefer not to bother arguing over this.

Just believe what you want, and I'll believe what I want.

This would be a fruitless argument that would never come to a conclusion, IMHO.

5. "truth is necessarily presupposed in belief" <--- your words by the way.

We both agree on this evidently.

From my perspective this observation nails it for truth being subjective and a man-made concept.

But you seem to recognize this too and obviously must be coming to totally different conclusions from it.

So that seems to sum it up.

~~~~~~

Although I'm still unclear on my question below #3 above in bold red.

What are you corresponding fact/reality with in your definition of truth? You state "Period." after your definition, but you haven't stated what you are corresponding fact/reality with?

It seems like an incomplete definition to me until you've stated clearly what it is that you are actually corresponding fact/reality with?

As I say, my definition is complete because I state precisely what it is that I am corresponding fact/reality with. I am corresponding it to the man-made description that we create to describe that fact/reality.

When that correspondence is believed to be correct, we say that we have discovered a "truth".

I see that you've been popping off a lot of posts whilst I was typing up my reply to your FIRST THREE PAGES.

Here you go again with your over-bearing arrogance.

You're telling me to "get it right" and then we can continue.

Sorry Micheal but it doesn't work that way.

You don't dictate to me what I must "get right".

You offer your views and opinions and I'll tell you what I think of them.

If I decide to agree with your views I will.

If I decide to disagree I'll do that too.

You don't tell me to "get it right".

That's nonsense!

And now let me actually address your statement in my own way:



I disagree.

Truth is indeed "a" correspondence by my definition.

If you don't like my definition too bad.

If you have a different definition for truth then FINE.

Just present it, but don't be telling me what I need to "get right".

Here's my definition of truth:

Truth - A correspondence between a description of a state of affairs, where the description correctly describes the state of affairs. If this criteria is met, then the description itself can actually be referred to as "a truth".

EXAMPLE.

The state of affairs is that the Earth orbits around the sun.
The description is: "The Earth orbits around the sun".

If and only if, this description correctly describes the state of affairs, then this correspondence is said to be a true correspondence, and thus the description itself can be stated to be 'a truth'

"Is is a truth that the Earth orbit around the sun"

That's basically my definition of truth in a nutshell. Complete with an example of something that we indeed believe to be 'a truth'.

~~~~~

This is how I see truth working and this is how I define it.

I don't need to "get anything right".

If my views disagree with yours then fine.

Just explain how your views differ without acting like I need to "get something right". That's just extreme over-bearing arrogance on your part and it's totally uncalled for.

~~~~

If your model of truth is different from then mine so be it!

Just explain what it is.

I disagree.

It most certainly can in my model of truth, because in my model of truth this particular description that is being referred to represents precisely the correspondence that I am calling 'truth'. Thus, for all intents and purpose it IS the correspondence. (i.e. it IS the truth by this definition.)



I disagree.

Written language is nothing more than the symbolic method that we have as one means of conveying our concepts, ideas, and descriptions of things.

Yes, truth is indeed contingent upon our concepts, ideas, and descriptions of things.

That is unavoidable. That is the way things must be when truth is defined the way that I am defining it.

You have yet to even say what you are corresponding fact/reality with?

You don't even have a correspondence to even discuss yet.

I'm still waiting for that.



It does by my definition.



Well you can't satisfy my definition of truth unless these conditions have indeed been met. So what's the problem?



My definition of truth works perfectly. It's the same basic way that truth is treated in the mathematics and sciences.



I don't see any contradiction here at all.

My definition satisfy all the criteria of what I have defined truth to mean.

What contradiction are you referring to?

Evidently you disagree on various points and perhaps that is your personal source of contradiction. But there is no contradiction in my definition. It works just fine.

And please don't forget, this is just a working definition for how humans determine what they call 'truth' it is not perfect, and often times what we call 'truth' may indeed not be true.

Why? Because we may have indeed erroneously believed to have had a correct correspondence when in fact we didn't.

But that's how it works!

When we realize that we've made a mistake we do our best to correct it.

This is how we define our truths.

This is how it is done in mathematics and in the sciences.

It's not a perfect system, but it is indeed how we do it.

Yes, they are having to rewrite how nova and the particles react, which is very exciting as well as other discoveries (the proton being smaller than originally thought).

As far as the philosophical question is truth subjective. I would say yes it is. Remember the Socrates story about people in the cave?

They only saw shadows of things so for them the shadows were what existed, the "truth." One escaped and saw daylight and living humans and other things, not just their shadow, before he was caught.

When back among the "shadow" people, they all thought he was crazy to saw what he did. After all, the shadows were truth.

I don't even understand what I was trying to say! Maybe explore the truth with a grain of optimism????

Yes I agree.

I just gave a modern example of something we believe to be "a truth" today. And that is that the Earth orbits around the sun. Most people today accept this to be an indisputable 'truth'.

But let's look at history.

Years ago people were convinced that the state of affairs is that the Earth was the center of creation and thus the center of the universe. They believed that everything revolved around the Earth.

They had many reasons to believe that this was indeed the "correct" state of affairs. They had superstitious religious reasons to believe that the Earth was the center of creation. They even "felt" that the Earth feels "rock solid" so how could it be moving? That made sense to them. Surely if the Earth was moving we'd feel it. That was a popular argument back in those days.

So the conclusion at that time was that the description "The Earth is the center of creation and everything revolves around the Earth" was indeed a correct description of reality - the state of affairs.

So for them this was 'a truth' because that's how humans define truth.

Later Copernicus, Galileo, and a host of other astronomers finally led us to the conclusion that the actual state of affairs is that the Earth orbits around the sun.

So now we believe that the description "The Earth orbits around the sin" is a correct description of reality or the state of affairs.

So now that is considered to be "a truth".

There's currently a thread in these forums that is suggesting that the Earth is not really orbiting around the sun but that the actual movement is far more complicated than this.

Well, of course astronomers are indeed aware of this. The motion of our entire solar system is quit complex in the detail, and can indeed ultimately be 'chaotic' in the final analysis.

So the 'truth' for future humans may be that they have determined that the actual state of affairs is that everything is a chaotic mess.

So it will become 'a truth' that everything is a chaotic mess.

Truth changes as we change our views on what constitutes a 'correct description of the state of affairs.

And like everything else 'truth' itself may be malleable. In other words, a particular state of affairs may actually change, thus the 'correct' description of that state of affairs must also be changed.

And thus what we are calling 'truth' has changed.

Of course we already know this.

Come visit me today and you will see that it is 'a truth' that it is very hot in my back yard.

Come visit me in the wintertime and you will see that it is 'a truth' that it is very cold in my back yard.

So at my house, the 'truth' of the temperature of my back yard is entirely dependent upon when you inquire about that 'truth'.

Maybe that is why I trust truth with a grain of salt...I know only change is constant and the truth could change.

Disagree all you want. You're wrong. In this situation we have three things. We have a statement, we have fact/reality, and we have correspondence.

Truth is that correspondence.



So? That does not matter.

Without fact/reality there would be nothing for the statement to correspond to either. That does not make fact/reality correspondence. Without a human to make the statement there would be no statement to correspond to fact/reality. That does not make the human correspondence. The statement either corresponds or not. It is not correspondence.

That is the fatal flaw that led you to the earlier claim that truth was a description that corresponded to fact/reality.

That is wrong.

Do we need to pull back up the absurd conclusions that follow from that? Truth is not a description.



In this case, it is true that the statement is paramount to the dynamic. I mean without a statement, there can be no statement which corresponds. It does not follow that the statement is correspondence. Nor does it follow that statements are the only thing that correspond. Like I argued pages and pages ago. Truth does not require language.

Everything believed need not be true, in order for truth to be central thought, belief and knowledge.



Missing the basic point. I believe X means I believe X is true... necessarily so. All thought/belief presupposes truth/reality correspondence. Without that, there could be no thought/belief.

The people set things out the wrong way to begin with.

The shadows were not "the truth". The shadows were states of affairs. The shadows were fact. The people believed that the shadows were the only things that existed. The belief was false because it did not correspond to fact/reality. The mistake the shadow people made was to presupposes that they perceived everything that existed.

The fact that people set truth out in the wrong way does not make truth subjective, it makes people's understanding subjective.

Prior to being able to think about the properties of a tree; the leaves, the trunk, the branches, the bark, the fruit, etc. Prior to being able to look at these things, prior to being able to use them, prior to being able to think about how it all works and in what way it works...

One must first believe that the tree is there.


Truth is central.

Most people are wrong. The orbits are states of affairs(fact).



That why the humans were wrong. It does not follow from the fact that we've been wrong about things, that we've been wrong about everything. It certainly does not make truth subjective.



Only for those who do not learn from their own mistakes and call fact, descriptions, and beliefs - 'truth'.





It is not that the earth does not orbit around the sun. It is that the entire frame of reference(our solar system) has movement that is not properly set out with the simple models of orbit. The earth still orbits around the sun.



No it won't. Even if chaos is the way things are, that does not make chao 'truth'. It makes it fact/reality. Should there be statements, thoughts, beliefs about the way things are that correspond to fact/reality, then there would be true statements, thoughts, belief.

Truth is that correspondence.



More nonsense that follows from calling a correct description of a state of affairs 'truth'. Truth is, always was, and always will be...

Correspondence to fact/reality.



Again, the logical consequence of setting truth out in the wrong way. In this example, what 'we' are calling 'truth' is not truth, it is a description of the way things are. What has changed are the states of affairs. What has changed are the descriptions of the states of affairs. What has not change is truth...

Truth is correspondence.





One cannot know a falsehood. Knowledge cannot be false. What has been set out here in this post about truth is not knowledge.



Same mistakes, over and over and over...

If it is hot in your backyard, then that is the state of affairs. That would be fact/reality. A claim which corresponds to that would be true. Truth is that correspondence.

If it is cold in your backyard, then that is the state of affairs. That would be fact/reality. A claim which corresponds to that would be true. Truth is that correspondence.



Muddle.

The temperature changes with the seasons. True claims match up to the way things are. Truth is that correspondence.

This is great Micheal, we are finally making progress like we have never made before in the entire time that we have ever conversed.

It appears to me now that you are finally fully on-board with "my" definition.

You state:


You are finally on-board with the FULL definition of truth as I have described it.

You recognize that there are three aspects to this definition.

1. The actual state of affairs which you call 'fact/reality'.

I'm ok with that.

2. The statement that describes the state of affairs. In other words, the all-important description which is being corresponded with the state of affairs or fact/reality.

3. Truth is this correspondence. In other words, truth is the recognition that the description correctly describes the state of affairs. Because that is precisely the correspondence we are referring to.

So that is "my" definition of truth

Well, it's not really "my" definition, this is what humans have meant by 'truth' for millennia. I learned this myself from having been a scientist and mathematician.

I simply understand the status quo of what we mean by 'truth'.

And it appears now that you are fully on-board with this but still seem to have some objections.

You're still trying to 'separate' this concept of 'correspondence' between a description and a state of affairs, and somehow 'objectify' it in it's own right as though is is some sort of independent mysterious thing called 'truth'.

That's not how I view this. I'm not going to say that you are 'wrong'. I'm just going to say that this isn't how I view this. I'll try to convey why I feel this way, and perhaps you can respond with why you feel differently.

I see no reason to 'objectify' this correspondence into some sort of independent entity in its own right. Where would that lead? As far as I can see that would only serve to unnecessarily confuse the issue at hand.

We have two things that are being corresponded. The state of affairs (or fact/reality if you prefer), and the statement (or description) of the state of affairs.

Those are the elements involved and when the description (i.e. statement) is said to correctly describe the state of affairs we assign a truth value of true to that statement.

So at that point the 'truth value' belongs to the statement. That precisely what we have done. We have assigned 'truth' to this statement.

That's the process.

So the statement is now said to be 'true'. In other words it is a 'truth'. And all we mean by that is that this statement (i.e. this description of the state of affairs) has passed this process.

And that's what we mean by 'truth'.

~~~~~~~~~

That how I view this process. I keep things SIMPLE.

Kind of like Occam's Razor. Why make things unnecessarily complicated?

It WORKS. What more do we need?

~~~~~~~~~~

Now it appears to me that you are attempting to 'objective' truth by creating some mysterious totally independent entity called "correspondence" and treating it as though it has some sort of independent existence in its own right.

What would be the point to that?

Where does that lead?

In what way would that be useful?

Where are you going with this mysterious phantom entity that you have created and called 'truth'?

In what way are you going to make use of this idea?

~~~~

As far as I'm concerned, I'm already DONE. I already have truth defined and understood and completely usable in a practical way with no need to create any phantom mysterious independent entity called "correspondence".

All I can ask at this point is "Where are you going with that idea?"

In what way is that useful?

What can you do with that idea?

I'm certainly interested in hearing where you're going with it.

But I confess right now that from my perspective it seems like a superfluous idea. I already have a workable system for 'truth' without and need for creating any mysterious phantom entities that I have no use for.

So I confess that I don't see the usefulness in going there.

You'll have to show me how that can be useful and meaningful. If you can do that, then I may be interested in become enlightened to something new from that.

In the meantime, the system I have for determining truth already works just fine for me.

So I really have no incentive to be making it overly complicated.

You'll have to show how your idea is USEFUL.

What?

So are you now equating belief to truth?

Ok, Micheal, I understand you PERFECTLY now.

I understand our differences.

I can even explain our differences to you if you are truly interested in understanding this.

We view 'truth' in an entirely different way.

It would be incorrect to say that either of us is 'wrong'. We simply view the idea of 'truth' in totally different ways is all.


I recognize what 'truth' means to human culture and how they use it in an everyday practical way. I understand how they define it, and what they mean when they claim that something is true.

I understand the processes with which they determine what is 'true'.

That's where I'm at. I'm living in a very pragmatic down-to-earth world of human reality. I recognize 'truth' to be a human construct, an human idea, a human conceptualization of ideals.

I accept that the human notion of truth is a man-made concept. A man-made definition. And I have no problem with this.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

~~~~~

You on the other hand are attempting to idealize the concept of 'truth' into a classical absolute objective form.

You're attempting to raise it up to a level of perfection that can only be described as a "philosophical unicorn".

You dream of such an idealized notion of 'truth' is indeed the dream of many philosophers.

However, it's an impractical notion when it come down to reality.

If you want to discuss 'truth' with humans, you need to use the same definitions of 'truth' that they use.

When in Rome do as the Romans do.

~~~~~

So our differences are extremely simple.

I view 'truth' as a very pragmatic invented concept of mankind.

You view 'truth' as some sort of lofty idealized philosophical pipe dream that can never be achieved in a practical manner in reality.

You also state things like:



How do you know that the orbits are states of affairs?

You don't know anything more than anyone else. All you know is that scientists have determined to the best of their ability that description, "Orbits are states of affairs" appears to correctly describe the states of affairs.

In other words, you are using mankind's invented concept and definition of 'truth' to claim that "Orbits are states of affairs".

Have you even been into space to see this for yourself?

If you had been living back in the days when it was believed that the Earth was the center of creation you'd be saying, "The Earth is the center of creation is the state of affairs!"

You'd be in the very same boat with everyone else, (just like you are today).

~~~~~

So at least we've finally communicated.

I view the concept of 'truth' very pragmatic and practical way. I recognize it to be a construct of mankind's imagination and definitions.

You on the other hand prefer to go off in la-la land of philosophical pink unicorns and proclaim that 'truth' is something more than this.

So we're not even in the same ball park, much less playing the same game.

Our 'truths' are indeed totally different concepts.

No question about it.

I won't be so arrogant as to say that my views are right and yours are wrong.

I'm content with just acknowledging that they are indeed dramatically different.

I'm simple extremely pragmatic, and you're dreaming of philosophical unicorns of an idealized concept of perfect truth.

~~~~~

I will say this much. I agree with Old Hippie on the following point:

If truth is associated with the states of affairs of reality, then truth is constantly changing because the states of affairs of reality certainly appear to be constantly changing as well.

So truth is malleable in any case. Pragmatic or idealized.

By the way what kind of 'logic' was that?

You say,


Shouldn't it more logically be?:

"One must first believe that the tree is there."

Therefore Belief is central.

~~~~~

Belief must come before Truth!

I believe this is true.