raw_thought wrote:Truth is not a "thing" it is a relationship. It is like the concept "smaller". Truth occurs when a proposition corresponds to reality. For example, the proposition "this apple is red" is true if the apple is red. However, as I mentioned previously such a common sense definition of truth ( the correspondence theory of truth) is a tautology or creates an infinite regress.
raw_thought wrote:Truth occurs when a proposition corresponds to reality.
Reality is a pretty big word.
One of the definitions of reality in Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary is:
"something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"
Is this a meaning of reality that applies to the definition of truth that you reference?
(A side bet always rides on the rare possibility of either yes because or no because.)
raw_thought wrote:The common sense understanding of truth is the correspondence theory of truth. From now on referred to as CTT.
If the CTT is true,what does it refer to? Another CTT? Depending on your perspective that is a tautology or an infinite regress. So what is truth?
PS;The CTT is the theory that a proposition is true if it corresponds to a fact.
This famous question was debated by all the ancient philosophers and even Pontius Pilate was stimulated to ask Jesus "quid veritas?"
I define truth as a quality of every conclusion or statement.
If the conclusion or statement corresponds with reality, then it is true.
Otherwise it is only partly true or else completely false.
raw_thought wrote:Truth is not a "thing" it is a relationship. It is like the concept "smaller". Truth occurs when a proposition corresponds to reality. For example, the proposition "this apple is red" is true if the apple is red. However, as I mentioned previously such a common sense definition of truth ( the correspondence theory of truth) is a tautology or creates an infinite regress.
raw_thought wrote:Truth occurs when a proposition corresponds to reality.
Reality is a pretty big word.
One of the definitions of reality in Merriam-Webster’s on-line dictionary is:
"something that is neither derivative nor dependent but exists necessarily"
Is this a meaning of reality that applies to the definition of truth that you reference?
(A side bet always rides on the rare possibility of either yes because or no because.)
Ok so now you want a philosophical definition of "reality" as well. Ok fine.
Reality is what exists within us and outside of us somewhere on or in the Earth, the atmosphere, space, and the Universe around us.
Existence means being, whether tangible being or intangible being.
You won't find that in Webster's or in any other dictionary.
raw_thought wrote:Truth is not a "thing" it is a relationship. It is like the concept "smaller". Truth occurs when a proposition corresponds to reality. For example, the proposition "this apple is red" is true if the apple is red. However, as I mentioned previously such a common sense definition of truth ( the correspondence theory of truth) is a tautology or creates an infinite regress.
Correct. As I said, it is a quality of every conclusion or statement.
Truth and reality is something none of us will ever experience, because we wouldn't, in all likelihood, be capable of recognising it if we came across it. Our best is a guesstimate.
Could 'truth' be that with which we all could agree on?
If 'all' means everyone and not just some, then this lessens the chances of one's own subjective views influencing how they look at what could be truth. How we look at life IS how we find (stumble upon) and see truth. For example, some, if not most, people nowadays would say that we need money to live, this is based on their own personal views, i.e., having been living with money all of their lives. However, if 'we' means all human beings, and we all could agree that human beings have lived for thousands, if not millions, of years without money, then can we all agree that we do not need money to live?
Btw I said, "could agree on" instead of "would agree on" because, as it is most probably known already, no matter what is said there is always some person who could or will disagree, just for the sack of disagreeing. So what we all could and can agree on is different from what we all would and will agree on.
The answer to finding truth is being able to look from everyone's perspective and not just from a few perspectives. If we look from every human's perspective, i.e., from the very first human being hitherto, then it becomes obvious that we can actually live without money. So, the truth is we can live without money. Even if someone wants to disagree with this truth, they cannot disagree with our human beings past. Human beings lived for a period of time without money. Some may even suggest that, "We still bartered", trying to side track us away from the truth. Living with bartering, without money, is still more proof that we can live without money. Anyway, before we started bartering, and way before we started using money, we human beings lived without money. Therefore, the truth still exists that we can live without money.
There is one problem here however and that is even if everyone does or can agree on something as being the truth that in of itself does not necessarily make it the truth. If everyone did agree that the sun goes around the earth, then this is a good example of something that everyone agreed on but was in fact not the truth. So, there needs to be a proviso added to 'the truth is that with which we all could agree on,' and that proviso is, as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change. If we believe we already know the truth, then we are not open to the fact that further knowledge/truth could come along later. For example even if, for now, the truth is we do not need money to live, the best thing to do is always stay open because just maybe one day things will change and the fact will then be that we do actually need money to live.
The most important thing here is to look at anything from the open mind. Closed mindedness does not help anyone. For example if everyone believes something and is in agreement with it, except for one, like in Galileo's time when he was saying that the sun does not actually go around the earth, then the truth does not and will not easily come to light. It was by holding a belief and thus not being able to look openly, which caused a whole lot of anguish for a lot of people for a considerably long time.
Being able to see 'what is truth' is done simply and easily by looking openly. Truth comes to light quicker, simpler, and easier when you are not necessarily looking for it but rather just looking at anything and everything from the open mind.
Another point about why truth could be that with which we all could agree on is if everyone is actually agreeing on something be true, i.e., the truth, then there is no one, at that point in time, disagreeing. Therefore why would anyone suggest that that is not the truth.
ken wrote:Could 'truth' be that with which we all could agree on?
If 'all' means everyone and not just some, then this lessens the chances of one's own subjective views influencing how they look at what could be truth. How we look at life IS how we find (stumble upon) and see truth. For example, some, if not most, people nowadays would say that we need money to live, this is based on their own personal views, i.e., having been living with money all of their lives. However, if 'we' means all human beings, and we all could agree that human beings have lived for thousands, if not millions, of years without money, then can we all agree that we do not need money to live?
Btw I said, "could agree on" instead of "would agree on" because, as it is most probably known already, no matter what is said there is always some person who could or will disagree, just for the sack of disagreeing. So what we all could and can agree on is different from what we all would and will agree on.
The answer to finding truth is being able to look from everyone's perspective and not just from a few perspectives. If we look from every human's perspective, i.e., from the very first human being hitherto, then it becomes obvious that we can actually live without money. So, the truth is we can live without money. Even if someone wants to disagree with this truth, they cannot disagree with our human beings past. Human beings lived for a period of time without money. Some may even suggest that, "We still bartered", trying to side track us away from the truth. Living with bartering, without money, is still more proof that we can live without money. Anyway, before we started bartering, and way before we started using money, we human beings lived without money. Therefore, the truth still exists that we can live without money.
There is one problem here however and that is even if everyone does or can agree on something as being the truth that in of itself does not necessarily make it the truth. If everyone did agree that the sun goes around the earth, then this is a good example of something that everyone agreed on but was in fact not the truth. So, there needs to be a proviso added to 'the truth is that with which we all could agree on,' and that proviso is, as long as we remain open to the fact that the truth could change. If we believe we already know the truth, then we are not open to the fact that further knowledge/truth could come along later. For example even if, for now, the truth is we do not need money to live, the best thing to do is always stay open because just maybe one day things will change and the fact will then be that we do actually need money to live.
The most important thing here is to look at anything from the open mind. Closed mindedness does not help anyone. For example if everyone believes something and is in agreement with it, except for one, like in Galileo's time when he was saying that the sun does not actually go around the earth, then the truth does not and will not easily come to light. It was by holding a belief and thus not being able to look openly, which caused a whole lot of anguish for a lot of people for a considerably long time.
Being able to see 'what is truth' is done simply and easily by looking openly. Truth comes to light quicker, simpler, and easier when you are not necessarily looking for it but rather just looking at anything and everything from the open mind.
Another point about why truth could be that with which we all could agree on is if everyone is actually agreeing on something be true, i.e., the truth, then there is no one, at that point in time, disagreeing. Therefore why would anyone suggest that that is not the truth.
You should always keep your definitions short and sweet. They should not turn into rants like the above.
Try Occam's Razor.
All unexpressed hypotheses and all expressed statements are either completely true or partially true or untrue.
If a hypothesis or statement corresponds with reality then it is true or partly true.
If not then it is false.
See -- 3 simply sentences forming one syllogism. Not a long, long rant.
Wait. Which movie is that, Hobbes? I was thinking '... And Justice For All'. It's been awhile.... Oh yeah, okay. I didn't pick up the accent at first lol!
No thankfully not, as you first described "volume".