No Such Thing as, "The Truth"

[Skepdick]

You forgot that some nouns are abstract nouns. "The truth" is an abstract noun, designating the set of all true statements.

And if your statement doesn't belong in the set of all true statements, then it isn't true, by definition.

So does the set of all true statements contain the statement "The set of all true statements exists" ?

Of course.

Shame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

[Immanuel Can]

So does the set of all true statements contain the statement "The set of all true statements exists" ?

Of course.

Shame.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_paradox

You think "set" here means "mathematical set"? '

Great reading again. You need to learn what "metaphor" means.

[Skepdick]

You think "set" here means "mathematical set"? '

I don't.

Whatever "set" means is immaterial. Because the set of "all true statements" contains an entry which refers to itself.

And that's a sufficient condition for impredicativity. You know... in Logic.

[RCSaunders]

There being no truth as you say you can't claim to be true what you are claiming.

I never said there is no truth. You are making the same mistake as IC. See my response to him.

Fine. Obviously you are rejecting something which is rarely asserted nowadays and you are making a difference between "the truth" and "the true" similar to ancient Stoics. But who cares about such kind of fabricated differentiations?

Do you do this all the time? I do not make (and never made) any such distinction. Its kind of silly to claim I say something I never said, then criticize it. My point is that there is no, "thing," that is truth. It is only an attribute of propositions, and every proposition with that attribute is, "true," and every one without it is false. Why do you want to make everything so obtusely complicated?

Nevertheless in the OP you are claiming "Truth is an attribute." and "is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so" and ...

You've taken what I said out of context. I never said, "truth is an assertion." It is not, it is an attribute. A proposition is an assertion. It makes a difference.

... "There is no other kind of truth." which may lead to the concept of an absolutely true ...

Of course it doesn't. If I use the description of sulfur from the periodic table of the elements and say, "there is no other kind of sulfur," does that make it, "absolute sulfur?" As I pointed out earlier, "absolute truth," is redundant, a proposition is either true or it isn't, just as an apple is either and apple or it isn't, and a cow is either cow or it isn't. It would be absurd to say an apple is an, "absolute apple," or a cow is an, "absolute cow," and it is just as absurd to say a truth (true proposition) is, "absolute truth."

[Sculptor]

People also have feelings about truth. At the simplest level honesty is the basis of any society because a society runs on rails of people meaning what they say and keeping promises. Most people know this, even when society is fractured into sub groups some of them criminal sub groups.

Sadly true. People who feel their petty beliefs are true is at the heart of all calumnies of the world.
But these are not "truth" but a pale fake truth.

At psychological level people's feelings about truth often amount to longings for or aimings-for more honesty , more truth, in social relationships.

Truth has been reified for the metaphysical level of feelings about truth.It may be the reification that you don't approve of.

You choose the correspondence theory of truth: I choose the coherence theory of truth with a nod to Plato.

I think any rational person does, since correspondence is higher heirachically
But I do not think you have given an example of coherence.
Chosing to believe because you think it feels right is not coherent.

[Skepdick]

Chosing to believe because you think it feels right is not coherent.

So why have you chosen to believe in such things as "beliefs" ?

[RCSaunders]

A proposition is either true or it isn't.

That's not true about all propositions. Some are true, some are not true; some are undecidable.

Undecidable is not true. No future proposition, for example, is either true or false.

[Walker]

There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity.

Truth is an attribute. Truth is an attribute of only one kind of thing: statements that assert something about something else. Any statement (sentence or proposition) of the form, "such'n'such is so'n'so," is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so, and is not true (false) if such'n'such is not so'n'so. Truth is nothing more than the attribute of all true assertions. There is no other kind of truth.

Like all attributes there is no truth independent of those things (verbal assertions) truth is a quality of. Truth only pertains to actual sentences that are thought, articulated, or written in a language. There is no truth of any kind independent of actual verbal statements. There is no truth independent of human conscious thought.

Just as there is no size, (such as big) or shape, (such as triangular), or taste (such as sweet) if there is nothing that has size, shape, or flavor, there is no truth (or falehood) if there is no verbal assertion that can be true or false.

Almost everything said or written about truth in religion and philosophy is nonsense intended to obfuscate what truth means with the intention of repudiating truth and knowledge to put over some absurd ideology, program, or agenda or other superstitious nonsense.

Using any form of “to be,” interjects a false equivalence when stating: the truth is this, or when stating: the truth is that.

A=A. Truth is Truth. This is This. That is That.

Stating the truth without “to be,” eliminates this limitation of language that encourages this aspect of self-imposed confusion.

[Skepdick]

Undecidable is not true.

Ahhh, good old obscurantism!

Undecidable is not true.
False is also not true.

So is undecidable the same as false?

[RCSaunders]

You choose the correspondence theory of truth: I choose the coherence theory of truth with a nod to Plato.

That explains a lot!

One certainly does not want the facts of reality to interfere with what one wants to believe, when feelings and belief in an ineffable mystical world which can be neither directly perceive or even described are so much, "nicer."

[Sculptor]

A proposition is either true or it isn't.

That's not true about all propositions. Some are true, some are not true; some are undecidable.

Undecidable is not true. No future proposition, for example, is either true or false.

There is another category: BS such as nonsensical propositions that cannot make sense.

[RCSaunders]

So is undecidable the same as false?

You don't know?

[RCSaunders]

That's not true about all propositions. Some are true, some are not true; some are undecidable.

Undecidable is not true. No future proposition, for example, is either true or false.

There is another category: BS such as nonsensical propositions that cannot make sense.

That's right, and there's lots of that.

[Walker]

There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity.

Truth is an attribute. Truth is an attribute of only one kind of thing: statements that assert something about something else. Any statement (sentence or proposition) of the form, "such'n'such is so'n'so," is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so, and is not true (false) if such'n'such is not so'n'so. Truth is nothing more than the attribute of all true assertions. There is no other kind of truth.

Like all attributes there is no truth independent of those things (verbal assertions) truth is a quality of. Truth only pertains to actual sentences that are thought, articulated, or written in a language. There is no truth of any kind independent of actual verbal statements. There is no truth independent of human conscious thought.

Just as there is no size, (such as big) or shape, (such as triangular), or taste (such as sweet) if there is nothing that has size, shape, or flavor, there is no truth (or falehood) if there is no verbal assertion that can be true or false.

Almost everything said or written about truth in religion and philosophy is nonsense intended to obfuscate what truth means with the intention of repudiating truth and knowledge to put over some absurd ideology, program, or agenda or other superstitious nonsense.

Using any form of “to be,” interjects a false equivalence when stating: the truth is this, or when stating: the truth is that.

A=A. Truth is Truth. This is This. That is That.

Stating the truth without “to be,” eliminates this limitation of language that encourages this aspect of self-imposed confusion.

Also, simply doing eliminates much of the confusion and delusion-based judgments concerning how, and why.

[RCSaunders]

There is no such thing as, "The Truth," or ultimate truth or absolute truth. Truth is not a thing, not a substance, and not an entity.

Truth is an attribute. Truth is an attribute of only one kind of thing: statements that assert something about something else. Any statement (sentence or proposition) of the form, "such'n'such is so'n'so," is an assertion that is true if such'n'such is actually so'n'so, and is not true (false) if such'n'such is not so'n'so. Truth is nothing more than the attribute of all true assertions. There is no other kind of truth.

Like all attributes there is no truth independent of those things (verbal assertions) truth is a quality of. Truth only pertains to actual sentences that are thought, articulated, or written in a language. There is no truth of any kind independent of actual verbal statements. There is no truth independent of human conscious thought.

Just as there is no size, (such as big) or shape, (such as triangular), or taste (such as sweet) if there is nothing that has size, shape, or flavor, there is no truth (or falehood) if there is no verbal assertion that can be true or false.

Almost everything said or written about truth in religion and philosophy is nonsense intended to obfuscate what truth means with the intention of repudiating truth and knowledge to put over some absurd ideology, program, or agenda or other superstitious nonsense.

Using any form of “to be,” interjects a false equivalence when stating: the truth is this, or when stating: the truth is that.

Just how do you suggest forming a proposition without asserting the relation of one thing to another actually being?

A=A. Truth is Truth. This is This. That is That.

The OP does not equate truth to anything. It's not even a logical premise, like, "A is A." (A=A is strictly mathematical, not logical.) It is a definition or description of what the concept, "truth," refers to. It is the very opposite of what you are suggesting. Truth is not any kind of thing that can be pointed to, it is only the identification of those propositions that assert something about reality which is actually the case. Nothing more.

Stating the truth without “to be,” eliminates this limitation of language that encourages this aspect of self-imposed confusion.

Well I don't believe it is possible to describe what anything is without some form of the concept, "being," either explicit or implied. But if you can do it, I'd be delighted to see an example.