What?

You're arguing coherence theory. THAT IS the basis of classical theist philosophy.

BINGO!



This is the difference between our views right here Creative!

You are clearly 'objectifying' truth.

You are 'classically' treating 'truth' as though it is an objective independent thing in it's own right and you are attempting to define that objective thing.

Therefore you could be "wrong".

You could be "wrong" because you might not have correctly defined this presupposed objective thing.

~~~~~~~

That's our difference right there in a nutshell!

~~~~~~~

I do not view truth as being an objective thing that I must define correctly. I view it as a human construct. However we define truth is "correct" because we are indeed defining what we mean by this concept.

How we go about defining truth is what truth ultimately means to us!

And I have absolutely no problem with this whatsoever.

~~~~~~~

In the classical picture that you are holding out you have already decided that there exists some objective truth "out there" which must be defined correctly.

That is classical thinking and I simply don't think like that anymore,.

So that's why we can never see eye-to-eye.

I am thinking in more modern terms where things are implicitly defined.

You are still thinking classically and holding the believe that everything must have an explicit definition.

~~~~~~~~~

So we're in two totally different ball parks playing two totally different games.

And it's no wonder that you are passionate about your objections. Because I'm not thinking of 'truth' as being a preexisting entity that we could be "wrong" about.

We define what we mean by truth. And that's the BEST we can do.

I've come to accept this. Just like I accept Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. I don't fight to try to preserve classical notions anymore.

As far as I'm concerned they can never be achieved,.

How can you ever know if you have 'truth' correct, if you demand that is is objective, yet you can't see it, touch it, taste it, smell it, or anything?

It's a philosophical unicorn.

This is why I have moved forward to the more implicit way of defining things. We decide what we mean by 'truth'. Truth is a human notion, a human concept, and we define what it means to us.

I totally accept that.

Evidently you don't. You're still seeking the classical philosophical unicorn of absolute objective truth.

How many times do I need to tell you that I have long since given up on that classical picture of reality?

By the way, if you start out with the premise that truth has objective reality, then how could you ever hope to conclude anything other than that.

You've already started with your conclusion!

The irony.



Where's the mirror?

Truth is neither objective, nor subjective, it is connective. I've argued that position, consistently, throughout this thread. One would think, that if a reader paid the slightest bit of attention, s/he would at least know that much.

Somebody mention "delusion" earlier?

Pages upon pages of it.

This bears repeating:



This is yet another example of setting truth out in the wrong way. "Truth value" is not truth. It is a measure of coherency. An argument can be completely coherent and false. "Truth value" is therefore, not necessarily a good indication that truth is/has been obtained.

This is not a conversation taking place within a casual register. This is philosophy, and it is a discipline. The register is formal. The way you've set things out here leads to nowhere by requiring some sort of omniscient Gods-eye perspective of "actual truth", in order for the claim to make sense.

Truth is correspondence to fact/reality, so here's what the above says.

"I take the position that, in so far as I can see, your definition is not complete until you acknowledge the actual truth(correspondence) that is being evaluted for a measure of coherency(truth value)."

--

Nonsense.

Coherency(truth value) does not measure truth.

DOGMA!

A description either corresponds to fact/reality or not. If, and only if, it corresponds, it is true. If we look to see if it corresponds, and it passes our subjective criterion for assent to believe, then it has been verified and we call it "true".

There is a significant difference between calling a description true and a description being true. The former depends upon us. The latter only depends upon us to make the claim. Whether or not the claim is true is not determined by us.

That is how it works.

This bears repeating as well:



It's a flaw in his logic.

1. A verified claim is truth.(primary premiss)
2. Truth cannot be false.(law of non-contradiction)
3. A verified claim cannot be false.(from 1,2)

The inference is valid. 3 necessarily follows from 1,2. However, 3. is false. True premisses cannot validly lead to false conclusions. The primary premiss is necessarily false.

How about a verified claim is simply a true claim?

It is deemed "true" by the person or people who verified it.

How can you say it is truth, when you have said that truth is correspondence to fact/reality?

Now you are saying that "truth" must be "verified" by someone.

No.

Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Thought, belief, and positive claims can correspond, but if there are true, it is because they correspond to fact/reality.

When I said that a belief can be a fact you said that it can only be a "true belief" but not a fact.

So if a verified claim can be "truth" then you have to agree that a verified belief can also be "truth."

What is the difference between "truth" and "fact?"

A verified claim is called "true".



No, I'm not. That is the flaw in the logic of Abra's argument, not mine.

Creative, could you please cease the childish ranting and raving?

It's crystal clear that we simply have two different views concerning the notion of truth.

Can you be mature enough to simply acknowledge this fact?

Here are the facts Creative:

Fact 1:

I have no problem at all with accepting that analytical truth is nothing more than a human construct. It is implicitly defined by humans in the way that I have described and it is totally logically consistent within that implicit model as it is.

There are no logical problems with this implicit definition for how we define what we mean by truth.

So please quit ranting and raving about that. That's totally immature on your part.


Fact 2:

You continually speak of truth as though it has some sort of independent existence which is somehow separate from human imagination. You demand that we must 'get it right' and that we actually could 'get it wrong' since you are indeed holding it out to be an objective entity or correspondence in its own right.

I have no problem with that. If that's your view on truth then fine. I personally have no interest in that view. That's all.

Fact #3:

If I were going to consider truth as having an independent objective existence or correspondence in its own right, then I would conclude that the spiritual truth (or experiential truth) that I have previously described would indeed be the only way we can actually experience this so-called 'objective' correspondence.

However, allow me to point out that even in this situation the actual 'truth' (or correspondence if you prefer) being experienced is just as much subjective as it is objective because, in that case, the subject is actually being immersed in 'state of affairs' and therefore becomes part of it. So there can be no distinction between the state of affairs and the person who is experiencing the state of affairs. And therefore the state of affairs itself becomee subjective. As does the 'truth' (the correspondence)

In fact, this is actually where our quest to seek analytical truth has brought us. In the sciences a quest to seek analytical truth has actually culminated in the discovery of Quantum Mechanics where it appears that there can be no real separation between the observer and the observed. In other words, we wind right back up being naked in the snow bank again becoming intimately entwined with the 'state of affairs'.

~~~~~~

So in the end, you and I may have different views on what we accept as 'truth' but your constant ranting and raving and complaining about analytical logical errors is utter nonsense. It's nothing short of being immature and childish.

All you're basically doing is ranting and raving that I won't accept your DOGMA.



This is absurd.

Why can't you act like a mature professional and just acknowledge that we approach these concepts from entirely different perspectives?

You don't need to agree with my views, nor do we need to argue that anyone is right or wrong.

We simply have different ways of addressing these issues and that's that.

There's no need for all this childish ranting and raving and accusing the other person of being illogical.

We just have different views on the subject is all.

your statement above was:

1. A verified claim is truth.(primary premiss)

I said that a verified claim is a true claim.

Then you said that a verified claim is called true.

So what is the difference?

I did.



I'm not agreeing. I'm pointing out the flaw in that logic.



Truth is correspondence to fact/reality and fact is a state of affairs.

Well Creative I'm glad you have it all figured out.

But its all very confusing and I'm not all that convinced that its even important enough to deserve this much attention.

Cheers

The difference is that I did not say that a verified claim is a true claim.

I said "A verified claim is called "true". "Called" being the operative word here. A claim is true if, and only if it corresponds to fact/reality.

Yes, but you haven't gone into that much detail with your definition.

Remember?

You have refused to acknowledge the specific correspondence that you are restricting your definition to.

It appears here that you are allowing though, belief, and positive claims to be things that can qualify as something that corresponds to fact/reality.

Well duh?

What are thoughts?

A description is nothing more than thoughts put into words.

What are beliefs?

A description is nothing more than beliefs put into words.

What are positive claims?

A description is nothing more than positive claims put into words.

So you've already got my definition for analytical truth anyway.

Yet you rant and rave that my definition is illogical.

~~~~~

Moreover, since you had failed to include those restrictions for correspondence with fact/reality in your original definition, then my spiritual truth, or experiential truth, model can also work as something that corresponds with fact/reality by your definition.

To just experience the state of affairs (or fact/reality) would be that correspondence and thus the experience itself would become TRUTH by your definition because the experience itself we BE the correspondence, which you are defining to be truth.

~~~~~~

So both of my definitions can be built from you primal idea.

One is the Analytical Truth of corresponding thought, belief, or claims to a state of affairs.

I simply shorten this by lumping thoughts, beliefs, and claims under the larger single umbrella of "descriptions".

And then we have Spiritual Truth or Experiential Truth where the actual experience of a state of affairs intimately becomes the correspondence (i.e. truth as you define it to be this correspondence).

~~~~~

So I have no clue what you are continaully ranting and raving about.

It seems that both of my definitions of truth totally satisfy your primal idea of what you believe truth should be anyway.