Psychology Wiki
No edit summary
 
m (Reverted edits by 97.102.236.41 (talk | block) to last version by Dr Joe Kiff)
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{PhilPsy}}
 
{{PhilPsy}}
  +
[[File:Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy.jpg|right|thumb|225px|''Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy'', [[François Lemoyne]], 1737]]
<noinclude>[[Image:Truth.jpg|thumb|''La Vérité'' ("The Truth") by the French painter [[Jules Joseph Lefebvre]]. [[Musée d'Orsay]], ,[[Paris]]. ]]</noinclude>
 
Common dictionary definitions of '''truth''' mention some form of accord with ''[[fact]]'' or ''[[reality]]''. There is, however, no single definition of truth about which scholars agree. Numerous theories of truth continue to be widely debated. There are many other issues about which scholars disagree. What sorts of things can properly be called true or false? What tests can establish a claim as being true? How do we ''know'' something to be true? Which truths, if any, are subjective, relative, objective, or absolute? Does truth, as a concept, have a rigorous definition, or is it unavoidably imprecise?
 
   
  +
'''Truth''' can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of [[Reality|real]] things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.<ref>[[Merriam-Webster|Merriam-Webster's]] Online Dictionary, [http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth truth], 2005</ref> The term has no single definition yet about which over fifty percent of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various [[theory|theories]] and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are [[truthbearer]]s capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is [[Subjectivity|subjective]], [[knowledge relativity|relative]], [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objective]], or [[Absolute (philosophy)|absolute]]. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.
==Philosophy of truth==
 
   
  +
==Nomenclature and etymology==
Since only meaningful things can be true or false, the association of the subjects of ''meaning'' and ''truth'' is standard. Both are studied as part of ''[[semantics]]'', especially ''[[semantics of logic|formal semantics]]''. Truth is also related to ''[[logical validity]]'', because the latter concept is defined in terms of truth and falsehood. For these reasons, ''meaning'' and ''validity'' are touched upon frequently both in this article and in published discussions of truth. It is conventional to refer to a philosophical treatment of a particular subject matter as a ''theory'', whether or not it qualifies as a theory by strictly [[empirical]] or [[logical]] criteria. Most of the discussion below follows this convention.
 
  +
{{see|Veritas|Aletheia}}
  +
The English word ''[[:wikt:truth|truth]]'' is from [[Old English]] ''tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ'', [[Middle English]] ''trewþe'', cognate to [[Old High German]] ''triuwida'', [[Old Norse]] ''tryggð''. Like ''[[troth]]'', it is a ''[[:wikt:-th|-th]]'' nominalisation of the adjective ''true'' (Old English ''tréowe'').
   
  +
The English word ''[[:wikt:true|true]]'' is from Old English ([[West Saxon]]) ''(ge)tríewe, [[:wikt:treowe|tréowe]]'', cognate to [[Old Saxon]] ''(gi)trûui'', [[Old High German]] ''(ga)triuwu'' ([[Modern German]] ''treu'' "faithful"), [[Old Norse]] ''tryggr'', [[Gothic language|Gothic]] ''triggws'',<ref>see [[Holtzmann's law]] for the ''-ww-'' : ''-gg-'' alternation.</ref> all from a [[Proto-Germanic]] ''*trewwj-'' "having [[good faith]]".
===Signs, sentences, and propositions===
 
  +
Old Norse ''{{lang|is|trú}}'', "faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"<ref>''[http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h442.php A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic]'', Geir T. Zoëga (1910), Northvegr.org</ref> (archaic English ''[[:wikt:troth|troth]]'' "loyalty, honesty, good faith", compare ''{{lang|is|[[Ásatrú]]}}'').
In some branches of philosophy and fields of science the domain of potentially meaningful entities may include almost any kind of informative or significant element, described by the generic terms ''[[sign (semiotics)|sign]]'' or ''[[representation]]''. Such entities may include words, pictoral representations, logical or mathematical symbols, etc., and also may include a wide variety of meaningful combinations or clusters of signs. Modern [[analytic philosophy]], by contrast, begins with a focus on the words and syntax of a ''[[sentence (linguistics)|sentence]]'', from which is abstracted its meaningful content, referred to as the corresponding ''proposition''. A [[proposition]] is the content expressed by a sentence, held in a belief, or affirmed in an assertion or judgment.
 
   
  +
Thus, 'truth' involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity",<ref>[[OED]] on ''true'' has "Steadfast in adherence to a commander or friend, to a principle or cause, to one's promises, faith, etc.; firm in allegiance; faithful, loyal, constant, trusty; Honest, honourable, upright, virtuous, trustworthy; free from deceit, sincere, truthful " besides "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity; Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is; Real, genuine; rightly answering to the description; properly so called; not counterfeit, spurious, or imaginary."</ref> and that of "agreement with [[fact]] or [[reality]]", in Anglo-Saxon expressed by ''[[:wikt:sōþ|sōþ]]''.
Sentences with relative pronouns, such as "I", "it", "now", "here", and so forth, can be true when uttered by one person but false when uttered by another, or even by the same person in a different place and time. For example, "I am a football fan", is true for some persons in some contexts and false for others. This suggests that it is not the sentence to which truth and falsity apply but what the sentence expresses, the proposition that it states.
 
   
  +
All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth "fidelity" and truth "factuality". To express "factuality", [[North Germanic]] opted for nouns derived from ''sanna'' "to assert, affirm", while continental [[West Germanic]] (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of ''wâra'' "faith, trust, pact" (cognate to Slavic ''věra'' "(religious) faith", but influenced by Latin ''[[veritas|verus]]''). [[Romance language]]s use terms following the Latin ''[[veritas]]'', while the Greek ''[[aletheia]]'' and Slavic ''[[:wikt:pravda|pravda]]'' have separate etymological origins.
Difficulties in human communication often arise from the fact that persons are capable of taking up different attitudes, called ''[[propositional attitude]]s'', toward what they think, say, or write, and may express their different stances in widely different ''[[linguistic modality|linguistic modalities]]''. Propositions can, for example, be accepted, asserted, believed, commanded, contested, declared, denied, doubted, enjoined, exclaimed, expected, imagined, intended, observed, proven, questioned, suggested, or wished to be true. Differentiating among the various attitudes and modalities that persons are capable of taking toward a proposition can be critical in evaluating truth. Due to the many factors involved, the analyses can be quite complex, and the philosophical discussions generally reflect this complexity.
 
   
  +
==The major theories of truth==
===Truthbearers===
 
  +
The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be considered true, whether by a single person or an entire society, is dealt with by the five major substantive theories introduced below. Each theory presents perspectives that are widely shared by published scholars.<ref name="EPT">[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Supp., "Truth", auth: Michael Williams, p572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref><ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.</ref> There also have more recently arisen "[[deflationary theory of truth|deflationary]]" or "minimalist" theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term like ''true'' to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its ''nature'', but that the label ''truth'' is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations.<ref name = EPT/><ref>Horwich, Paul, ''Truth'', (2nd edition, 1988),</ref><ref>Field, Hartry, ''Truth and the Absence of Fact'' (2001).</ref>
''[[Truthbearer]]'' is used by a number of modern writers to refer to any entity that can be judged true or false. The term ''truthbearer'' may be applied to [[propositions]], [[sentences]], [[statement]]s, [[idea]]s, [[belief]]s, and [[judgment]]s. Some writers exclude one or more of these categories, or argue that some of them are true (or false) only in a derivative sense.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#2]. A judgment, for instance, may be regarded as true (or not true) only in a derivative sense, since a judgment such as "X is true" or "Y is false" depends on the existence of "X" or "Y" in order to make such a judgment about X or Y.</ref> Other writers may add additional entities to the list.<ref>"Thoughts", "intuitions" and "utterances" are examples of some additional entities that may be regarded by theorists as entities capable of analysis as truthbearers. ''See, again, e.g.,'' [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#2].</ref> ''Truthbearer'', in the context of modern philosophical discussion, is never applied to a person or group of persons; rather, the term is applied to the kinds of entities above because they are deemed specific enough to reasonably be subjected to a close analysis of whether or not they are true. Fictional forms of expression are usually regarded as false if interpreted literally, but may be said to bear a species of truth if interpreted suitably. Still other truthbearers may be judged true or false to a greater or lesser degree.
 
   
===Truth predicates===
+
===Substantive theories===
  +
[[File:Truth-Warner-Highsmith.jpeg|thumb|130px|Truth, holding a [[mirror]] and a [[Serpent (symbolism)|serpent]] (1896). [[Olin Levi Warner]], Library of Congress [[Thomas Jefferson Building]], [[Washington, D.C.]]]]
Many discussions of truth allow for a number of phrases that are used to say in what ways signs or sentences or their abstract senses are regarded as true, either by themselves or in relation to other things. Theorists who admit the term call these phrases ''[[truth predicate]]s''. In ordinary parlance, the things that one says about a subject are expressed in predicates. If one says a sentence is true, then one is predicating truth of that sentence. Is this the same thing as asserting the sentence without the additional qualification that the sentence "is true"? This question serves as an important touchstone for sorting out some of the major theories of truth.
 
   
  +
====Correspondence theory====
==Major theories of truth==
 
  +
{{main|Correspondence theory of truth}}
  +
For the truth to correspond it must first be proved by evidence or an individuals valid opinion, which have similar meaning or context.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 (Macmillan, 1969) Prior uses [[Bertrand Russell|Bertrand Russell's]] wording in defining correspondence theory. According to Prior, Russell was substantially responsible for helping to make correspondence theory widely known under this name.</ref> This type of theory posits a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as [[Socrates]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969)</ref> This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to "things", by whether it accurately describes those "things". An example of correspondence theory is the statement by the Thirteenth Century philosopher/theologian [[Thomas Aquinas]]: ''Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus'' ("Truth is the equation [or adequation] of things and intellect"), a statement which Aquinas attributed to the Ninth Century [[neoplatonist]] [[Isaac Israeli ben Solomon|Isaac Israeli]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p224, Macmillan, 1969.</ref><ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].</ref> Aquinas also restated the theory as: “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality” <ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy], (citing De Veritate Q.1, A.1&3; cf. Summa Theologiae Q.16).</ref>
   
  +
Correspondence theory practically operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying what was much later called "[[objective reality]]" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Bradley, F.H., "On Truth and Copying", in Blackburn, ''et al.'' (eds., 1999),''Truth'', 31-45.</ref> Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors.<ref name=EPT/><ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 ''ff''. Macmillan, 1969). See especially, section on "Moore's Correspondence Theory", 225-226, "Russell's Correspondence Theory", 226-227, "Remsey and Later Wittgenstein", 228-229, "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230-231.</ref> For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another. The [[German language|German]] word ''[[Zeitgeist]]'' is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word fails to accurately capture its full meaning (this is a problem with many abstract words, especially those derived in [[agglutinative languages]]). Thus, some words add an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate [[truth predicate]]. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is [[Alfred Tarski]], whose [[semantic theory of truth|semantic theory]] is summarized further below in this article.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 ''ff''. Macmillan, 1969). See the section on "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230-231.</ref>
Questions about what is a proper basis upon which to decide whether, and to what extent, belief is in accordance with fact, and to what extent statements and the ideas they convey are in accord with real things, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many important questions dealt with by the theories introduced in this section.
 
   
  +
Proponents of several of the theories below have gone further to assert that there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal power struggles, community interactions, personal biases and other factors involved in deciding what is seen as truth.
Traditional theories of truth share the claim that truth is a property that certain types of things may have, perhaps in relation to other things, and so the assertion that something is true makes a substantive, significant claim about it.<ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999),''Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.</ref> There have more recently arisen so-called ''[[deflationary theory of truth|deflationary]]'' or ''minimalist'' theories of truth that are based on the idea that the application of a term like ''true'' to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its ''nature'', but that the label ''truth'' is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations.<ref>Horwich, Paul, ''Truth'', (2nd edition, 1988),</ref><ref>Field, Hartry, ''Truth and the Absence of Fact'' (2001).</ref>
 
 
===Traditional (substantive) theories===
 
 
Traditional theories of truth treat truth as a meaningful concept, taking it to refer to significant properties of meaning-bearing entities, to [[relation (mathematics)|relation]]s that connect them to each other, and to relations that involve them with other things in the world. According to these theories, ascribing truth to meaning-bearing elements says something significant about them. Such theories analyze truth as a descriptive property with a nature that can be discovered through philosophical investigation and reflection. The task for such theories is to explain the alleged nature of truth.
 
   
 
====Coherence theory====
 
====Coherence theory====
 
{{main|Coherence theory of truth}}
 
{{main|Coherence theory of truth}}
There is no single coherence theory of truth but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly collected under this title. A pervasive tenet is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions and can be ascribed to individual propositions only derivatively according to their coherence with the whole. Where theorists differ is mainly on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system. For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within the whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency. For example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the utility and validity of a coherent system.<ref>[[Immanuel Kant]], for instance, assembled a controversial but quite coherent system in the early 19th Century, whose utility and validity continues to be debated even today. Similarly, the systems of [[Leibniz]] and [[Spinoza]] are characteristic systems that are internally coherent but controversial in terms of their utility and validity.</ref>
 
   
  +
For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system.<ref>[[Immanuel Kant]], for instance, assembled a controversial but quite coherent system in the early 19th century, whose validity and usefulness continues to be debated even today. Similarly, the systems of [[Leibniz]] and [[Spinoza]] are characteristic systems that are internally coherent but controversial in terms of their utility and validity.</ref> A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics.<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth:Alan R. White, p130-131 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref> However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate [[independence (mathematical logic)|axiomatically independent]] but mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various [[noneuclidean geometry|alternative geometries]]. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the [[natural world]], [[empirical]] data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth:Alan R. White, p131-133, ''see'' esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions" (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>
 
   
  +
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of [[formal system]]s in logic and mathematics.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p130-131 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref> However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate [[independence (mathematical logic)|axiomatically independent]] and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various [[noneuclidean geometry|alternative geometries]]. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the [[natural world]], [[empirical]] data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p131-133, ''see'' esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions" (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of [[continental rationalism|continental rationalist]] philosophers, particularly of [[Spinoza]], [[Leibniz]], and [[G.W.F. Hegel]], along with the British philosopher [[F.H. Bradley]].<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth:Alan R. White, p130</ref> They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of [[logical positivism]], notably [[Otto Neurath]] and [[Carl Hempel]].
 
   
  +
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of [[rationalism|rationalist]] philosophers, particularly of [[Spinoza]], [[Leibniz]], and [[G.W.F. Hegel]], along with the British philosopher [[F.H. Bradley]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p130</ref> They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of [[logical positivism]], notably [[Otto Neurath]] and [[Carl Hempel]].
====Correspondence theory====
 
{{main|Correspondence theory of truth}}
 
 
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth:Arthur N. Prior, p223 Macmillan, 1969)</ref> This type of theory, in essence, attempts to posit a relationship (a "truth relation") between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other, as it might theoretically exist independently of the persons involved in the exchange and independently of other issues. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers.<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth:Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969)</ref> This class of theory holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to objective reality, by whether it accurately describes (that is, corresponds with) that reality.
 
 
Correspondence theory has traditionally operated on the assumption that there ''is'' an objective truth relation with which it is the human task to become properly aligned. In practice, however, more recent theorists have articulated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. For example, analyses of correspondence that are cast within particular languages are forced to admit the particular language in question as an additional parameter at the outset of theoretical work, and only gradually construct a language-independent [[truth predicate]] by means of a careful theory of translation among different languages. There are strong theoretical limitations on the extent to which this can be done. Commentators and proponents of several of the theories introduced below also have widely asserted that the correspondence theory neglects the role of the persons involved in the "truth relation."
 
   
 
====Constructivist theory====
 
====Constructivist theory====
 
{{main|Constructivist epistemology}}
 
{{main|Constructivist epistemology}}
  +
[[Constructivist epistemology|Social constructivism]] holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including [[race]], [[sexuality]], and [[gender]] are socially constructed ([[Hegel]], Garns, and [[Marx]] were among the first to suggest such an ambitious expansion of [[social determinism]]).
 
  +
[[Constructivist epistemology|Social constructivism]] holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[Human sexuality|sexuality]], and [[gender]] are socially constructed.
  +
  +
[[Giambattista Vico]] was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's [[epistemology|epistemological]] orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom{{ndash}} ''verum ipsum factum''{{ndash}} "truth itself is constructed". [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is, or can be, socially constructed. Marx, like many critical theorists who followed, did not reject the existence of objective truth but rather distinguished between true knowledge and knowledge that has been distorted through power or ideology. For Marx scientific and true knowledge is 'in accordance with the dialectical understanding of history' and ideological knowledge 'an epiphenomenal expression of the relation of material forces in a given economic arrangement'.<ref> May, Todd, 1993, Between Genealogy and Epistemology: Psychology, politics in the thought of Michel Foucault' with reference to Althusser and Balibar, 1970</ref>
   
 
====Consensus theory====
 
====Consensus theory====
 
{{main|Consensus theory of truth}}
 
{{main|Consensus theory of truth}}
  +
The [[consensus theory of truth|consensus theory]] holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. The label "consensus theory" of is variously attached to a number of otherwise very diverse philosophical perspectives. Some variants of "pragmatic theory of truth" have been included as consensus theory, though the range of "pragmatic theories" is sufficiently broad that it merits its own classification. Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is [[Jürgen Habermas]]. Among its current strong critics is the philosopher [[Nicholas Rescher]].
 
  +
[[Consensus theory of truth|Consensus theory]] holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a [[subset]] thereof consisting of more than one person.
  +
  +
Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher [[Jürgen Habermas]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', Habermas, Jürgen, ''Knowledge and Human Interests'' (English translation, 1972).</ref> Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an [[ideal speech situation]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', Habermas, Jürgen, ''Knowledge and Human Interests'' (English translation, 1972), esp. PART III, pp 187 ''ff''.</ref> Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher [[Nicholas Rescher]].<ref>Rescher, Nicholas, ''Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus'' (1995).</ref>
   
 
====Pragmatic theory====
 
====Pragmatic theory====
 
{{main|Pragmatic theory of truth}}
 
{{main|Pragmatic theory of truth}}
Three influential versions of the pragmatic theory of truth are due to [[Charles Peirce]], [[William James]], and [[John Dewey]].
 
   
  +
The three most influential forms of the ''pragmatic theory of truth'' were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[William James]], and [[John Dewey]]. Although there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.5, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth", 427 (Macmillan, 1969).</ref>
Peirce defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."<ref>Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp. 718–720 in J.M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573.</ref> This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as ''[[fallibilism]]'' and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like ''concordance'' and ''correspondence'' to describe one aspect of the pragmatic [[sign relation]], he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than ''nominal'' definitions, which he accords a lower status than ''real'' definitions.
 
   
  +
[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce]] defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."<ref name="Peirce Truth and Falsity">Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp. 716–720 in [[James Mark Baldwin]], ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', v. 2. Peirce's section is entitled "''Logical''", beginning on p. 718, column 1, and ending on p. 720 with the intials "(C.S.P.)", see Google Books [http://books.google.com/books?id=Dc8YAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA718 Eprint]. Reprinted, ''[[Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography#CP|Collected Papers]]'' v. 5, pp. 565–573.</ref> This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as ''[[fallibilism]]'' and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like ''concordance'' and ''correspondence'' to describe one aspect of the pragmatic [[sign relation]], he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than ''nominal'' definitions, which he accords a lower status than ''real'' definitions.
[[William James]]'s version of the pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."<ref name=WJP>James, William, ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism','' (1909).</ref> By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic"). James's pragmatic theory is in part a synthesis of correspondence and coherence theory, with an added dimension. Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as "hang together", or cohere, and these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of proposed truths to actual practice<ref>James, William, ''A World of Pure Experience'' (1904); ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to "Pragmatism"'' (1907); ''Essays in Radical Empiricism.'' also cf. Chapt. 3, "The Thing and it's Relations" (1912) pp. 92–122</ref><ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth", auth:Gertrude Ezorsky, p427-428 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref> James extended his pragmatic theory well beyond the scope of scientific verifiability, and even into the realm of the mystical: "On pragmatic principles, if the hypothesis of God works satisfactorily in the widest sense of the word, then it is 'true'". <ref name=WJP /> [[John Dewey]], less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time ''if'' openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.<ref> Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Dewey, John", auth Richard J. Bernstein, p383 (Macmillan, 1969) </ref>
 
   
  +
[[William James|William James's]] version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."<ref name=WJP>James, William, ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism','' (1909).</ref> By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic").
===Deflationary (minimalist) theories===
 
  +
  +
[[John Dewey]], less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time ''if'' openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Dewey, John", auth [[Richard J. Bernstein]], p383 (Macmillan, 1969) </ref>
  +
  +
===Minimalist (deflationary) theories===
 
{{main|Deflationary theory of truth}}
 
{{main|Deflationary theory of truth}}
Other philosophers reject the idea that truth is a robust concept in the sense discussed in the previous section. From this point of view, to say "''2 + 2 = 4'' is true" is to say no more than to say "2 + 2 = 4", and that there is no more to say about truth than this. These positions are broadly called "deflationary" theories of truth (because the concept has been "deflated" of importance) or "disquotational" theories (to draw attention to the mere "disappearance" of the quotation marks in cases like the above example), or alternately, "minimalist" views.<ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'' in the Introductory section of the book.</ref><ref name=EPT>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., "Truth", auth:Michael Williams, p572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref> Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "[t]he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis." <ref name=EPT/>
 
   
  +
A number of philosophers reject the thesis that the concept or term ''truth'' refers to a real property of sentences or propositions. These philosophers are responding, in part, to the common use of ''truth predicates'' (e.g., that some particular thing "...is true") which was particularly prevalent in philosophical discourse on truth in the first half of the 20th century. From this point of view, to assert the proposition “'2 + 2 = 4' is true” is logically equivalent to asserting the proposition “2 + 2 = 4”, and the phrase “is true” is completely dispensable in this and every other context. These positions are broadly described
In addition to highlighting this formal feature of the predicate "is true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless sentence:
 
  +
*as ''deflationary'' theories of truth, since they attempt to deflate the presumed importance of the words "true" or ''truth'',
  +
*as ''disquotational'' theories, to draw attention to the disappearance of the quotation marks in cases like the above example, or
  +
*as ''minimalist'' theories of truth.<ref name=EPT/><ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'' in the Introductory section of the book.</ref>
  +
  +
Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "[t]he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis."<ref name=EPT/> Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility, deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. Among the theoretical concerns of these views is to explain away those special cases where it ''does'' appear that the concept of truth has peculiar and interesting properties. (See, e.g., [[Semantic paradox]]es, and below.)
  +
  +
In addition to highlighting such formal aspects of the predicate "is true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless sentence:
 
:''Michael says, 'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red or he says ... etc.''
 
:''Michael says, 'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red or he says ... etc.''
  +
This assertion can also be succinctly expressed by saying: ''What Michael says is true''.<ref>Kirkham, Theories of Truth, MIT Press, 1992.</ref>
But it can be expressed succinctly by saying:
 
:''Whatever Michael says is true''.
 
Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility, deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. The primary theoretical concern of these views is to explain away those special cases where it appears that the concept of truth does have peculiar and interesting properties. (See [[Semantic paradox]]es, and below.)
 
   
 
====Performative theory of truth====
 
====Performative theory of truth====
Attributed to [[P. F. Strawson]] is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow is white' is true" is to perform the [[speech act]] of signalling one's agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for example, that when the bride says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, she is performing the act of taking this man to be her lawful wedded husband. She is not ''describing'' herself as taking this man. In a similar way, Strawson holds: "To say a statement is true is not to make a statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with, accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that 'it's raining.'" <ref> Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6: ''Performative Theory of Truth'', auth:Gertrude Ezorsky, p88 (Macmillan, 1969) </ref>
+
Attributed to [[P. F. Strawson]] is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow is white' is true" is to perform the [[speech act]] of signaling one's agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for example, that when the bride says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, she is performing the act of taking this man to be her lawful wedded husband. She is not ''describing'' herself as taking this man, but actually doing so (perhaps the most thorough analysis of such "perlocutionary" statements is [[J. L. Austin]], "[[How to Do Things With Words]]"<ref>J. L. Austin, "How to Do Things With Words". Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975</ref>).
  +
  +
Strawson holds that a similar analysis is applicable to all speech acts, not only to special perlocutionary ones: "To say a statement is true is not to make a statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with, accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that 'it's raining.'"<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.6: ''Performative Theory of Truth'', auth: Gertrude Ezorsky, p88 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>
   
 
====Redundancy and related theories====
 
====Redundancy and related theories====
 
{{main|Redundancy theory of truth}}
 
{{main|Redundancy theory of truth}}
   
According to the [[redundancy theory of truth]], asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, asserting the sentence "&nbsp;'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting the sentence "Snow is white". Redundant theorists infer from this premiss that truth is a redundant concept, that is, a mere word that is conventional to use in certain contexts of discourse but not a word that points to anything in reality. The theory is commonly attributed to [[Frank P. Ramsey]]. Ramsey held that the use of words like ''fact'' and ''truth'' was nothing but a [[periphrasis|roundabout]] way of asserting a proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment was merely a "linguistic muddle".<ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., "Truth", auth:Michael Williams, p572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref><ref>Ramsey, F.P. (1927), "Facts and Propositions", Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–170. Reprinted, pp. 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990</ref>
+
According to the [[redundancy theory of truth]], asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, making the assertion that "&nbsp;'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting "Snow is white". Redundancy theorists infer from this premise that truth is a redundant concept; that is, it is merely a word that is traditionally used in conversation or writing, generally for emphasis, but not a word that actually equates to anything in reality. This theory is commonly attributed to [[Frank P. Ramsey]], who held that the use of words like ''fact'' and ''truth'' was nothing but a [[periphrasis|roundabout]] way of asserting a proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment was merely a "linguistic muddle".<ref name="EPT"/><ref>Ramsey, F.P. (1927), "Facts and Propositions", Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–170. Reprinted, pp. 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990</ref><ref>Le Morvan, Pierre. (2004) "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", ''The British Journal for the History of Philosophy'' 12(4), pp. 705-718.</ref>
   
A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modified form of [[Tarski]]'s [[Truth#Semantic theory of truth|schema]]: To say that '"P" is true' is to say that P. Yet another version of deflationism is the [[prosentential theory of truth]], first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and [[Nuel Belnap]] as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's raining", are [[prosentence]]s (see [[pro-form]]), expressions that merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that ''it'' means the same as ''my dog'' in the sentence ''My dog was hungry, so I fed it'', ''That's true'' is supposed to mean the same as ''It's raining'' &mdash; if you say the latter and I then say the former. These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is ''not'' a property, but rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P" may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are minimalizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as "that's true."<ref name=EPT/>
+
A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modified form of [[Tarski]]'s [[Truth#Semantic theory of truth|schema]]: To say that '"P" is true' is to say that P. Yet another version of deflationism is the [[prosentential theory of truth]], first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and [[Nuel Belnap]] as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's raining", are [[prosentence]]s, expressions that merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that ''it'' means the same as ''my dog'' in the sentence ''My dog was hungry, so I fed it'', ''That's true'' is supposed to mean the same as ''It's raining'' &mdash; if you say the latter and I then say the former. These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is ''not'' a property, but rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P" may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are minimalizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as "that's true."<ref name=EPT/>
   
Deflationary principles do not apply to representations that are not analogous to sentences, and also do not apply to many other things that are commonly judged to be true or otherwise. Consider the analogy between the sentence "Snow is white" and the person Snow White, both of which can be true in a sense. To a minimalist, saying "Snow is white" is true is the same as saying "Snow is white", but to say "Snow White is true" is ''not'' the same as saying "Snow White."
+
Deflationary principles do not apply to representations that are not analogous to sentences, and also do not apply to many other things that are commonly judged to be true or otherwise. Consider the analogy between the sentence "Snow is white" and the character named Snow White, both of which can be true in some sense. To a minimalist,
  +
saying "Snow is white is true" is the same as saying "Snow is white," but to say "Snow White is true" is ''not'' the same as saying "Snow White."
   
  +
===Pluralist theories ===
==Formal definitions of truth==
 
  +
{{main|Pluralist theories of truth}}
  +
Several of the major theories of truth hold that there is a particular property the having of which makes a belief or proposition true. Pluralist theories of truth assert that there may be more than one property that makes propositions true: ethical propositions might be true by virtue of coherence. Propositions about the physical world might be true by corresponding to the objects and properties they are about.
   
  +
Some of the pragmatic theories, such as those by [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Charles Peirce]] and [[William James]], included aspects of correspondence, coherence and constructivist theories.<ref name="Peirce Truth and Falsity"/><ref name=WJP/> [[Crispin Wright]] argued in his 1992 book ''Truth and Objectivity'' that any predicate which satisfied certain platitudes about truth qualified as a truth predicate. In some discourses, Wright argued, the role of the truth predicate might be played by the notion of superassertibility.<ref>Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.</ref> [[Michael Lynch (philosopher)|Michael Lynch]], in a 2009 book ''Truth as One and Many'', argued that we should see truth as a functional property capable of being multiply manifested in distinct properties like correspondence or coherence. <ref>Truth as One and Many (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).</ref>
===Semantic theory of truth===
 
   
  +
===Most believed theories===
  +
  +
According to a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views which was carried out in November 2009 (taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students) 44.9% of respondents accept or lean towards correspondence theories, 20.7% accept or lean towards deflationary theories and 13.8% epistemic theories.<ref>http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium</ref>
  +
  +
==Formal theories==
  +
===Truth in logic===
  +
{{main|Logical truth|Validity|Fact|Interpretation (logic)|Truth value}}
  +
  +
[[Logic]] is concerned with the patterns in [[reason]] that can help tell us if a [[proposition]] is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a [[metaphysics|metaphysician]] does. Logicians use [[formal language]]s to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some [[interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] or truth within some [[logical system]].
  +
  +
A logical truth (also called an analytic truth or a necessary truth) is a statement which is true in all possible worlds<ref>[[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], [[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]]</ref> or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a ''[[fact]]'' (also called a ''[[Analytic-synthetic_distinction|synthetic claim]]'' or a ''[[Necessary_and_sufficient_condition|contingency]]'') which is only true in this [[World (philosophy)|world]] as it has historically unfolded. A proposition such as “If p and q, then p.” is considered to be logical truth because it is true because of the meaning of the [[symbol (formal)|symbols]] and [[well-formed formula|words]] in it and not because of any facts of any particular world. They are such that they could not be untrue.
  +
  +
===Truth in mathematics===
  +
{{main|Model theory|Proof theory}}
  +
  +
There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the ''[[model theory|model theory of truth]]'' and the ''[[proof theory|proof theory of truth]]''{{fact|date=July 2009}}.
  +
  +
Historically, with the nineteenth century development of [[Boolean algebra (logic)|Boolean algebra]] mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In [[propositional logic]], these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of [[axioms]] and [[rules of inference]], often given in the form of [[truth table]]s.
  +
  +
In addition, from at least the time of [[Hilbert's program]] at the turn of the twentieth century to the proof of [[Gödel's theorem]] and the development of the [[Church-Turing thesis]] in the early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were generally assumed to be those statements which are provable in a formal axiomatic system.
  +
  +
The works of [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Alan Turing]], and others shook this assumption, with the development of statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) esp. 89 ''ff''.</ref> Two examples of the latter can be found in [[Hilbert's problems]]. Work on [[Hilbert's 10th problem]] led in the late twentieth century to the construction of specific [[Diophantine equations]] for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution,<ref>M. Davis. "Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable." ''American Mathematical Monthly'' 80, pp. 233-269, 1973</ref> or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, [[Hilbert's first problem]] was on the [[continuum hypothesis]].<ref>Yandell, Benjamin H.. ''The Honors Class. Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers'' (2002).</ref> Gödel and [[Paul Cohen (mathematician)|Paul Cohen]] showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard [[axiom]]s of [[set theory]] and a finite number of proof steps.<ref>Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) 1-28, 89 ''ff''.</ref> In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.
  +
  +
===Semantic theory of truth===
 
The [[semantic theory of truth]] has as its general case for a given language:
 
The [[semantic theory of truth]] has as its general case for a given language:
:'P' is true if and only if P
+
:'P' is true if and only if P
 
where 'P' is a reference to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the sentence itself.
 
where 'P' is a reference to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the sentence itself.
   
Line 97: Line 132:
 
===Kripke's theory of truth===
 
===Kripke's theory of truth===
 
[[Saul Kripke]] contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to construct one as follows:
 
[[Saul Kripke]] contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to construct one as follows:
  +
* Begin with a subset of sentences of a natural language that contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is false"). So ''The barn is big'' is included in the subset, but not " ''The barn is big'' is true", nor problematic sentences such as "''This sentence'' is false".
  +
* Define truth just for the sentences in that subset.
  +
* Then extend the definition of truth to include sentences that predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So "''The barn is big'' is true" is now included, but not either "''This sentence'' is false" nor "'''The barn is big'' is true' is true".
  +
* Next, define truth for all sentences that predicate truth or falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated infinitely, so that truth is defined for ''The barn is big''; then for "''The barn is big'' is true"; then for "'''The barn is big'' is true' is true", and so on.
   
  +
Notice that truth never gets defined for sentences like ''This sentence is false'', since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts the [[Principle of bivalence]]: every sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in deriving the Liar paradox, the paradox is dissolved.<ref>Kripke, Saul. "Outline of a Theory of Truth", Journal of Philosophy, 72 (1975), 690-716</ref>
* Begin with a subset of sentences of a natural language that contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is false"). So ''The barn is big'' is included in the subset, but not ' ''The barn is big'' is true', nor problematic sentences such as ''"This sentence is false"''.
 
   
  +
==View of truth as somebody==
* Define truth just for the sentences in that subset.
 
   
  +
Expressing the serious view of [[Christians]], especially the [[Catholic Church]], not limited to truth in matters of religion, Father [[John Corapi]] repeatedly states and is frequently quoted as stating (with minor variations in wording) that "The Truth is not a something. It is a Somebody. And His Name is [[Jesus Christ]].”<ref>See, for example, Father John Corapi's [http://www.amazon.com/Easter-Triduum-Entering-Pascal-Mystery/dp/1570585342 Easter Triduum].</ref> [[Christians]] cite the [[Gospel of John]], in which [[Jesus Christ]] is quoted as telling [[Thomas the Apostle]] that "I am the way, the truth, and the life."<ref>John 14:6.</ref> The [[Catechism of the Catholic Church]] states that "God ... is the truth"<ref>''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' #2464.</ref> and that "the whole of God's truth" is manifest in His son, [[Jesus Christ]].<ref>''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' #2466.</ref> "He ''is the Truth''." [emphasis in original]<ref>''Catechism of the Catholic Church'' #2466.</ref>
* Then extend the definition of truth to include sentences that predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So ' ''The barn is big'' is true' is now included, but not either ''This sentence is false'' nor "' ''The barn is big'' is true' is true".
 
  +
Ancient Egyptians held "In a hymn to Amon-Re, the creator and sustainer of the world, Ma’at equates with truth: Thy Mother is Truth, O Amon!"
  +
In Zoroastrian theology, the angel Rashnu, who presides at the "ordeal court", is truth personified. <ref>[http://books.google.com/books?id=f_khbOTgSQ8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=zoroaster+%22personification-of-truth%22&source=bl&ots=CT2-RV8ZMM&sig=sMSYXNKySfsX07VbvALmR6SaUX0&hl=en&ei=hvHQSsCUNMHVlAfrsuz_Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false].</ref>
  +
Islamic prophecy projects: "All glory will come after his advent. He will be the personification of Truth and Uprightness, as if Allah had descended from the Heaven." (Tazkira, Page 691)
   
  +
==Notable views==
* Next, define truth for all sentences that predicate truth or falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated infinitely, so that truth is defined for ''The barn is big''; then for ' ''The barn is big'' is true'; then for "' ''The barn is big'' is true' is true", and so on.
 
  +
[[File:Truth.jpg|thumb|120px|''La Vérité'' ("Truth") by [[Jules Joseph Lefebvre]]]]
   
  +
===Ancient history===
Notice that truth never gets defined for sentences like ''This sentence is false'', since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts the [[Principle of bivalence]]: every sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in deriving the Liar paradox, the paradox is dissolved.
 
  +
The ancient [[Greek language|Greek]] origins of the words "true" and "truth" have some consistent definitions throughout great spans of history that were often associated with topics of [[logic]], [[geometry]], [[mathematics]], [[deduction]], [[inductive reasoning|induction]], and [[natural philosophy]].
   
  +
[[Socrates|Socrates']], [[Plato|Plato's]] and [[Aristotle|Aristotle's]] ideas about truth are commonly seen as consistent with correspondence theory. In his ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'', Aristotle stated: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.<ref name=StanfordCorr>David, Marion (2005). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#1 "Correspondence Theory of Truth"] in [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]</ref> The [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] proceeds to say of Aristotle:
==Types of truth==
 
   
  +
<blockquote>Aristotle sounds much more like a genuine correspondence theorist in the ''Categories'' (12b11, 14b14), where he talks of “underlying things” that make statements true and implies that these “things” (pragmata) are logically structured situations or facts (viz., his sitting, his not sitting). Most influential is his claim in ''De Interpretatione'' (16a3) that thoughts are “likenessess” (homoiosis) of things. Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought's likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind.<ref name=StanfordCorr/></blockquote>
[[Metaphysical subjectivism]] holds that the truth or falsity of all propositions depends, at least partly, on what we believe. In contrast, [[Objectivism (metaphysics)|metaphysical objectivism]] holds that truths are independent of our subjective beliefs. Except for propositions that are actually about our beliefs or sensations, what is true or false is independent of what we think is true or false.
 
   
  +
Very similar statements can also be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b).<ref name=StanfordCorr/>
Relative truths are statements or propositions that are true only relative to some standard, convention, or point-of-view, such as that of one's own culture. Many would agree that the truth or falsity of ''some'' statements are relative: That the [[fork]] is to the left of the [[spoon]] depends on where one stands. [[Relativism]] is the doctrine that ''all'' truths within a particular domain (say, morality or aesthetics) are of this form, and entails that what is true varies across cultures and eras. For example, [[moral relativism]] is the view that moral expectations are socially determined.
 
   
  +
===Medieval age===
Relative truths can be contrasted with absolute truths. The latter are statements or propositions that are taken to be true for all cultures and all eras. For example, for the microeconomist, that the laws of [[supply and demand]] determine the value of any consumable in a market economy is true in all situations; for the Kantian, "act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law" forms an absolute moral truth. They are statements that are often claimed to emanate from the very nature of the universe, God, human nature, or some other ultimate essence or transcendental signifier.
 
  +
====Avicenna====
  +
In [[early Islamic philosophy]], [[Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina) defined truth in his Metaphysics of Healing, Book I, Chapter 8, as:
   
  +
{{quote|What corresponds in the mind to what is outside it.<ref>Osman Amin (2007), "Influence of Muslim Philosophy on the West", ''Monthly Renaissance'' '''17''' (11).</ref>}}
The concept of absolute truth, as understood in philosophy, should not be confused with the concept of absolute truth as it is used in religious traditions.
 
   
  +
[[Avicenna]] elaborated on his definition of truth in his ''[[Metaphysics]]'' Book Eight, Chapter 6:
[[Absolute truth|Absolutism]] in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras.
 
   
  +
{{Quote|The truth of a thing is the property of the being of each thing which has been established in it.<ref name=Aertsen>Jan A. Aertsen (1988), ''Nature and Creature: Thomas Aquinas's Way of Thought'', p. 152. BRILL, ISBN 9004084517.</ref>}}
==Truth in law==
 
Truth, as a concept, is a central issue in law,<ref>Susan Haack, “truth, truths, “truth,” and “truths” in the law, Journal of Philosophy, Science & Law, Volume 3, September 2003.</ref> though the actual use of the word "truth" in legal practice tends to be limited to certain very specific contexts.<ref>William M. Shields, J.D., ""Truth in Legal Practice", in ''Journal of PHilosophy, Science and Law'', Volume 3, November 2003.</ref> Witnesses who swear under [[oath]] to [[testimony|testify]] truthfully in [[court]]s of law are not expected to make infallibly true statements, but to make a [[good faith]] attempt to accurately recount prior events from memory, or provide [[expert witness|expert testimony]]. Triers-of-fact are then charged with the responsibility to determine the [[credibility]] or [[veracity]] of a witness's testimony. Differing accounts from separate witnesses testifying in good-faith are commonplace. Errors are not attributed to [[perjury]] unless a very stringent standard of proof is met when charging a witness with lying under oath.
 
   
  +
However, this definition is merely a translation of the Latin translation from the Middle Ages.<ref>{{cite book
Beyond the standard oath taken by witnesses, the word "truth" is seldom officially used.<ref>''Ibid.''</ref> Courts, judges and juries are never referred to, for instance, as "finders of truth." In addition to [[procedural law|procedural]] and [[substantive law| substantive]] legal rulings, courts designate a [[finder of fact]] (jury or judge) to decide what the facts are in a case given often conflicting sets of information. In a very specific and limited context, "truth" is also a legal [[term of art]] referring to a standard [[affirmative defense]] to a charge of [[defamation]],<ref>Black’s Law Dictionary, ed. Bryan A. Garner, 7th Edition, 1999, 1520.</ref> this use of the term in this specific manner deriving from [[common law]] dating back at least seven centuries.<ref>Docherty, Bonnie, "Defamation Law: Positive Jurisprudence" in Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol 13, (Spring 2000) 264 ff.</ref> William J. Shields summarizes the weight which the law gives to the word "truth" by noting that Black’s Law Dictionary devotes just a few lines to it: "1. A fully accurate account of events, factuality. 2. Defamation. An affirmative defense by which the defendant asserts that the alleged defamatory statement is substantially accurate."<ref>Shields, ''op cit'' intro section of article.</ref> Shields goes on to say:
 
  +
| author = Simone van Riet
<blockquote>By contrast, the definition of “fact” covers about two full pages, with three principal meanings and 42 definitions of specific types of fact. “Evidence” covers five full pages with four principal meanings and 93 definitions of specific types. Even the definition of the crime of perjury avoids the use of “truth”: “the act or an instance of a person’s deliberately making material false or misleading statements while under oath.” Perusal of other legal references (treatises, dictionaries, periodicals, etc.) will yield the same results. Where “truth” or “true” is defined, it will be to the effect of “that which is a fact” or “that which is verifiable,” leading back to the legal concepts of evidence and proof.<ref>''Ibid''. Shields's footnotes eliminated here. [http://www.miami.edu/ethics/jpsl/archives/newsedit/shieldsA.html]</ref> </blockquote>
 
  +
| title = Liber de philosophia prima, sive Scientia divina
  +
| page = 413
  +
| language = Latin}}</ref> A modern translation of the original Arabic text states:
   
  +
{{quote|Truth is also said of the veridical belief in the existence [of something].<ref>{{cite book
==Truth in mathematics==
 
  +
| title = Avicenna: The Metaphysics of The Healing
{{main articles|[[Model theory]], [[Proof theory]], [[Philosophy of mathematics]].}}
 
  +
| translator = Michael E. Marmura
  +
| publisher = Brigham Young University Press
  +
| year = 2005
  +
| page = 284
  +
}}</ref>}}
   
  +
====Aquinas====
There are two main [[truth theory|truth theories]] in mathematics. They are the ''[[model theory|model theory of truth]]'' and the ''[[proof theory|proof theory of truth]]''.
 
  +
Following Avicenna, and also Augustine and Aristotle, [[Thomas Aquinas]] stated in his ''Disputed Questions on Truth'':
   
  +
{{quote|A natural thing, being placed between two intellects, is called ''true'' insofar as it conforms to either. It is said to be true with respect to its conformity with the divine intellect insofar as it fulfills the end to which it was ordained by the divine intellect... With respect to its conformity with a human intellect, a thing is said to be true insofar as it is such as to cause a true estimate about itself.<ref>''Disputed Questions on Truth'', 1, 2, c, reply to Obj. 1. Trans. Mulligan, McGlynn, Schmidt, ''Truth'', vol. I, pp. 10-12.</ref>}}
Historically, with the [[19th century]] development of [[Boolean algebra]] mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In [[propositional logic]], these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of [[axioms]] and [[rules of inference]], often given in the form of [[truth table]]s.
 
   
  +
Thus, for Aquinas, the truth of the human intellect (logical truth) is based on the truth in things (ontological truth).<ref>"Veritas supra ens fundatur" (Truth is founded on being). ''Disputed Questions on Truth'', 10, 2, reply to Obj. 3.</ref> Following this, he wrote an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view in his [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm Summa I.16.1]:
In addition, from about the time of [[Hilbert's program]] in the late 19th century to the proof of [[Gödel's theorem]] and the development of the [[Church-Turing thesis]] in the early [[20th century]], true statements in mathematics were generally assumed to be those statements which are provable in a formal axiomatic system.
 
   
  +
{{quote|Veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei. <br> (Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things.)}} Aquinas also said that real things participate in the act of being of the [[God|Creator God]] who is Subsistent Being, Intelligence, and Truth. Thus, these beings possess the light of intelligibility and are knowable. These things (beings; [[reality]]) are the foundation of the truth that is found in the human mind, when it acquires knowledge of things, first through the [[sense]]s, then through the [[understanding]] and the [[judgement]] done by [[reason]]. For Aquinas, human [[intelligence]] ("intus", within and "legere", to read) has the capability to reach the [[essence]] and [[existence]] of things because it has a non-material, [[Spirituality|spiritual]] element, although some moral, educational, and other elements might interfere with its capability.
The works of [[Kurt Gödel]] and [[Alan Turing]] shook this assumption, with the discovery of statements that are true but cannot be proven, and of statements whose truth or falsity is undecidable.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) esp. 89 ''ff''.</ref> Two examples of the latter can be found in [[Hilbert's problems]]. Work on [[Hilbert's 10th problem]] led in the late 20th century to the construction of specific [[Diophantine equations]] for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution <ref>M. Davis. "Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable." ''American Mathematical Monthly'' 80, pp. 233-269, 1973</ref>, or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, [[Hilbert's first problem]] was on the [[continuum hypothesis]].<ref>Yandell, Benjamin H.. ''The Honors Class. Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers'' (2002).</ref> Gödel and [[Paul Cohen]] showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard [[axiom]]s of [[set theory]].<ref>Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) 1-28, 89 ''ff''.</ref> In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.
 
   
  +
===Modern age===
  +
====Kant====
  +
[[File:Immanuel Kant (painted portrait).jpg|thumb|125px|right|[[Immanuel Kant]]]]
  +
[[Immanuel Kant]] discussed the correspondence theory of truth<ref name=StanfordCorr/> in the following manner, criticizing correspondence theory as [[Begging the question|circular reasoning]].
  +
<blockquote>Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients [[Diallelos]]. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man.<ref name = "Kant-1800">Kant, Immanuel (1800), Introduction to Logic. Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Dennis Sweet (intro.) (2005)</ref></blockquote>
  +
According to Kant, the definition of truth as correspondence is a "mere verbal definition", here making use of Aristotle's distinction between a nominal definition: a definition in name only, and a real definition: a definition that shows the [[Definition#Essence|true cause or essence]] of the term that is being defined. From Kant's account of the history, the definition of truth as correspondence was already in dispute from classical times, the "skeptics" criticizing the "logicians" for a form of circular reasoning, though the extent to which the "logicians" actually held such a theory is not evaluated.<ref name = "Kant-1800"/>
   
  +
====Hegel====
  +
[[Georg Hegel|Hegel]] tried to distance his philosophy from psychology by presenting truth as being an external self&ndash;moving object instead of being related to inner, subjective thoughts. Hegel's truth is analogous to the [[mechanics]] of a material body in motion under the influence of its own inner force. "Truth is its own self&ndash;movement within itself."<ref>"Die Wahrheit ist die Bewegung ihrer an ihr selbst." ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]'', Preface, ¶ 48</ref> Teleological truth moves itself in the three&ndash;step form of [[Dialectic|dialectical triplicity]] toward the final goal of perfect, final, absolute truth. For Hegel, the progression of philosophical truth is a resolution of past oppositions into increasingly more accurate approximations to absolute truth. [[Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus|Chalybäus]] used the terms "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis|thesis]]," "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis|antithesis]]," and "[[Thesis, antithesis, synthesis|synthesis]]" to describe Hegel's dialectical triplicity. The "thesis" consists of an incomplete historical movement. To resolve the incompletion, an "antithesis" occurs which opposes the "thesis." In turn, the "synthesis" appears when the "thesis" and "antithesis" become [[Sublation|reconciled]] and a higher level of truth is obtained. This "synthesis" thereby becomes a "thesis," which will again necessitate an "antithesis," requiring a new "synthesis" until a final state is reached as the result of reason's historical movement. History is the [[Absolute (philosophy)|Absolute Spirit]] moving toward a goal. This historical progression will finally conclude itself when the Absolute Spirit understands its own infinite self at the very end of history. Absolute Spirit will then be the complete expression of an infinite [[God]].
   
  +
====Schopenhauer====
==Truth in religion==
 
  +
For [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer]],<ref>''On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason'', §§ 29&ndash;33</ref> a [[judgment]] is a combination or separation of two or more [[concept]]s. If a judgment is to be an expression of [[knowledge]], it must have a [[Principle of sufficient reason|sufficient reason]] or ground by which the judgment could be called true. ''Truth is the reference of a judgment to something different from itself which is its sufficient reason (ground)''. Judgments can have material, formal, transcendental, or metalogical truth. A judgment has ''material'' truth if its concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called logical or ''formal''. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has ''transcendental'' truth.
Most religious traditions hold a body of truths that are part of the particular tradition. Such truths may be considered to be spiritually revealed, or may be developed through tradition, or may be a combination of both. Whatever these truths are for the particular religious tradition, they can be called part of the ''[[doctrine]]'' of that tradition.
 
   
===Christianity===
+
====Kierkegaard====
  +
When [[Søren Kierkegaard]], as his character ''Johannes Climacus'', wrote that ''"Truth is Subjectivity"'', he does not advocate for [[subjectivism]] in its extreme form (the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so), but rather that the objective approach to matters of personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.<ref>Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript''. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992</ref>
Assertions of truth based upon revelation and testimony set forward in the Bible is central to Christian beliefs. Some denominations have asserted additional authorities as sources of doctrinal truth &mdash; for instance, in Roman Catholicism the Pope is asserted to be infallible on matters of church doctrine.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Richard F. Costigan, ''The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I'' (2005)</ref>
 
====Biblical inerrency====
 
Some Christian traditions hold a doctrine called [[Biblical inerrancy]], which asserts that the Bible is without error, that is, it can be said to be true as to all issues contained within, whether Old Testament or New. Various interpretations have been applied, depending on the tradition.<ref>''See, e.g.'' Norman L. Geisler, ''Inerrancy'' (1980)</ref><ref>Stephen T. Davis, ''The debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus infallibility'' (1977)</ref> According to some interpretations of the doctrine, ''all'' of the Bible is without error, i.e., is to be taken as true, no matter what the issue. Other interpretations hold that the Bible is always true on important matters of faith, while yet other interpretations hold that the Bible is true but must be specifically interpreted in the context of the language, culture and time that relevant passages were written.<ref>''See, e.g.'' Marcus J. Borg, ''Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally'' (2002) 7-8</ref>
 
   
  +
While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are continuing and dynamic. The truth of one's existence is a living, inward, and subjective experience that is always in the process of becoming. The values, morals, and spiritual approaches a person adopts, while not denying the existence of objective truths of those beliefs, can only become truly known when they have been inwardly appropriated through subjective experience. Thus, Kierkegaard criticizes all systematic philosophies which attempt to know life or the truth of existence via theories and objective knowledge about reality. As Kierkegaard claims, human truth is something that is continually occurring, and a human being cannot find truth separate from the subjective experience of one's own existing, defined by the values and fundamental essence that consist of one's way of life.<ref>Watts, Michael. ''Kierkegaard'', Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003</ref>
===="Double truth" theories====
 
In thirteenth century Europe, the [[Roman Catholic Church]] denounced what it described as theories of "double truth," i.e. theories to the effect that although a truth may be established by reason, its contrary ought to be believed as true as a matter of faith. The condemnation was aimed specifically at a "Latin Averroist" (see [[Averroës]]), [[Siger of Brabant]], but it was more broadly an attempt to halt the spread of [[Aristotle]]'s ideas, which the reconquest of Spain and, accordingly, access to the libraries of the Moors had re-introduced into the Latin literate world. <ref>''See, e.g.,'' Gilson, Etienne, ''"La doctrine de la double vérité," Études de philosophie médiévale'' (1921), pp. 51-69; translated as, ''History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages'' (1955).</ref> At the time, much of the doctrine of the [[Roman Catholic]] Church was based upon [[neoplatonic]] ideas, and Aristoteleanism struck many as [[heresy]]. Siger and others seem to have conceded this, and to have used the sharp reason/faith distinction that came to be known as "double truth" as a way of legitimizing discussion of Aristotle despite that concession.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/delmedigo/#4._Rationalism_and_the_so-called_“double_truth_theory”]</ref>
 
   
  +
====Nietzsche====
===Eastern religious perspectives===
 
  +
[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] believed the search for truth or 'the will to truth' was a consequence of the ''[[will to power]]'' of philosophers. He thought that truth should be used as long as it promoted life and the will to power, and he thought untruth was better than truth if it had this life enhancement as a consequence. As he wrote in ''[[Beyond Good and Evil]]'', "''The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding...''" (aphorism 4). He proposed the ''will to power'' as a truth only because according to him it was the most life affirming and sincere perspective one could have.
The [[two truths doctrine]] of [[Buddhism]] distinguishes between statements which reflect ultimate reality and relatively true statements. This doctrine attempts to reconcile relative and absolute truth(s), placing the concepts in a perspective in which "common sense" truths and empirical truths are "relative," in contrast to religious doctrine and perspective.<ref>Gethin, Rupert. Foundations of Buddhism. (1998) pp. 207, 235-245.</ref> The [[Jainism|Jain]] doctrine of ''[[anekantavada]]'' ([[Sanskrit]] for "non-onesidedness") dictates that statements be considered from many points of view.The contemporary writer [[Ken Wilber]] has used these ideas to develop a [[AQAL|four-fold conception of truth]].<ref>Wilber, Ken, ''A Brief History of Everything'' (2001) 106 - 122</ref><ref>Wilber, Ken, ''No Boundary: Eastern and Western Approaches to Personal Growth'' (2003)</ref>
 
   
  +
Robert Wicks discusses Nietzsche's basic view of truth as follows:
==Additional observations about truth==
 
  +
<blockquote>Some scholars regard Nietzsche's 1873 unpublished essay, "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" ("Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn") as a keystone in his thought. In this essay, Nietzsche rejects the idea of universal constants, and claims that what we call "truth" is only "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms." His view at this time is that arbitrariness completely prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the very artistic transference of nerve stimuli into images; "truth" is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes, especially those of repose, security and consistence.<ref>Robert Wicks, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#EarWri187187 Friedrich Nietzsche - Early Writings: 1872-1876], The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref></blockquote>
  +
  +
====Whitehead====
  +
{{Wikiquote|Alfred North Whitehead}}
  +
[[Alfred North Whitehead]] a British mathematician who became an American philosopher, said: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil".
  +
  +
The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since [[half-truth]]s are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion.
  +
  +
====Nishida====
  +
According to [[Kitaro Nishida]], "knowledge of things in the world begins with the differentiation of unitary consciousness into knower and known and ends with self and things becoming one again. Such unification takes form not only in knowing but in the valuing (of truth) that directs knowing, the willing that directs action, and the feeling or emotive reach that directs sensing."<ref>John Maraldo, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/#2.2 Nishida Kitarô - Self-Awareness], in: ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref>
  +
  +
====Fromm====
  +
[[Erich Fromm]] finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal truth". He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one's environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in "a strange and powerful world". The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in "Man from Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics" (1947), from which excerpts are included below.
  +
  +
: the dichotomy between 'absolute = perfect' and 'relative = imperfect' has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where "it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles".
  +
  +
: In that respect, "a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result". The history of science is "a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation."
  +
  +
: As a result "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period." Fromm furthermore notes that "different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth" and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.
  +
  +
====Foucault====
  +
Truth, for [[Michel Foucault]], is problematic when any attempt is made to see truth as an "objective" quality. He prefers not to use the term truth itself but "Regimes of Truth". In his historical investigations he found truth to be something that was itself a part of, or embedded within, a given power structure. Thus Foucault's view shares much in common with the concepts of [[Truth#Nietzsche|Nietzsche]]. Truth for Foucault is also something that shifts through various [[episteme]] throughout history.<ref>Foucault, M. "The Order of Things", London: Vintage Books, 1970 (1966)</ref>
  +
  +
====Baudrillard====
  +
[[Jean Baudrillard]] considered truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He took his cue from [[iconoclasm|iconoclast]]s who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated the fact that God did not exist.<ref name = "Baudrillard">Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994.</ref> Baudrillard wrote in "Precession of the Simulacra":
  +
::The [[simulacrum]] is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
  +
::—Ecclesiastes<ref>Baudrillard, Jean. [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html "Simulacra and Simulations", in ''Selected Writings''], ed. [[Mark Poster]], [[Stanford University Press]], 1988) 166 ''ff''</ref><ref>Baudrillard's attribution of this quote to [[Ecclesiastes]] is deliberately fictional. "Baudrillard attributes this quote to Ecclesiastes. However, the quote is a fabrication (see Jean Baudrillard. Cool Memories III, 1991-95. London: Verso, 1997). Editor’s note: In Fragments: Conversations With François L’Yvonnet. New York: Routledge, 2004:11, Baudrillard acknowledges this 'Borges-like' fabrication." Cited in footnote #4 in Smith, Richard G., [http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/smith.htm#_edn4 "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations"], International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, Volume 2, Number 1 (January 2005)</ref>
  +
  +
Some examples of simulacra that Baudrillard cited were: that prisons simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (eg, [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]]) simulate that corruption is corrected; Disney simulates that the U.S. itself is an adult place. One must remember that though such examples seem extreme, such extremity is an important part of Baudrillard's theory. For a less extreme example, consider how movies usually end with the bad being punished, humiliated, or otherwise failing, thus affirming for viewers the concept that the good end happily and the bad unhappily, a narrative which implies that the status quo and institutionalised power structures are largely legitimate.<ref name = "Baudrillard"/>
   
Honest intentions play a unique role in the ethics of epistemology. [[Jurgen Habermas]] understands truthfulness to be one of the dimensions of valid speech.<ref>Habermas, Jurgen, ''[[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas, Jürgen]] (1976), "What Is Universal Pragmatics?", 1st published, "Was heißt Universalpragmatik?", ''Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie'', [[Karl-Otto Apel]] (ed.), Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Reprinted, pp. 1–68 in Jürgen Habermas, ''Communication and the Evolution of Society'', Thomas McCarthy (trans., 1979)</ref> The moral importance of honest intent is underscored by the remarks of [[Buddha]]: “Herein someone avoids false speech and abstains from it. He speaks the truth, is devoted to truth, reliable, worthy of confidence, not a deceiver of people. Being at a meeting, or amongst people, or in the midst of his relatives, or in a society, or in the king's court, and called upon and asked as witness to tell what he knows, he answers, if he knows nothing: "I know nothing," and if he knows, he answers: "I know"; if he has seen nothing, he answers: "I have seen nothing," and if he has seen, he answers: "I have seen." Thus he never knowingly speaks a lie, either for the sake of his own advantage, or for the sake of another person's advantage, or for the sake of any advantage whatsoever.”<ref>[http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/waytoend.html#ch4 Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood]</ref> In its most extreme form, the obligation to tell the truth may manifest itself as a strong form of [[evidentialism]], which holds that "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything on insufficient evidence".<ref>Clifford, William K., ''The Ethics of Belief'' (1877).</ref>
 
   
==Notes==
 
<references/>
 
   
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
  +
{{Wikipedia-Books|Epistemology}}
{{col-begin}}
 
{{col-break}}
+
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Aletheia]]
  +
* [[Asha]]
 
* [[Belief]]
 
* [[Belief]]
* [[Confirmation holism]]
+
* [[Contextualism]]
  +
* [[Degrees of truth]]
 
* [[Disposition]]
 
* [[Disposition]]
* [[Honesty]]
+
* [[Imagination]]
  +
* [[Independence (mathematical logic)|Independence]]
 
* [[Inquiry]]
 
* [[Inquiry]]
  +
* [[Interpretation (logic)|Interpretation]]
* [[Knowledge]]
 
  +
* [[Invariance (mathematics)|Invariance]]
* [[Liar paradox]]
 
 
{{col-break}}
 
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Knowledge]]
 
* [[Lie]]
 
* [[Lie]]
 
* [[Lie-to-children]]
 
* [[Lie-to-children]]
  +
* [[List of fallacies]]
 
* [[Normative science]]
 
* [[Normative science]]
 
* [[Objectivity (philosophy)|Objectivity]]
 
* [[Objectivity (philosophy)|Objectivity]]
 
* [[Paradox]]
 
* [[Paradox]]
  +
* [[Perspectivism]]
* [[Wiktionary:Philalethia|Philalethia]]
 
  +
* [[Philalethia]]
  +
* [[Physical symbol system]] {{nb10}}
  +
* [[Public opinion]]
  +
* [[Reality]]
 
* [[Relativism]]
 
* [[Relativism]]
 
{{col-break}}
 
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Religion]]
  +
* [[Truth (religious)|Religious truth]]
 
* [[Slingshot argument]]
 
* [[Slingshot argument]]
  +
* [[Statistical independence]]
 
* [[Tautology (logic)]]
 
* [[Tautology (logic)]]
 
* [[Tautology (rhetoric)]]
 
* [[Tautology (rhetoric)]]
* [[Truth theory]]
 
 
* [[Truthiness]]
 
* [[Truthiness]]
  +
* [[Truthlikeness]]
  +
* [[Two truths doctrine]]
 
* [[Unity of the proposition]]
 
* [[Unity of the proposition]]
  +
* [[Verisimilitude]]
 
* [[Veritas]]
 
* [[Veritas]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
   
 
===Truth in logic===
 
===Truth in logic===
{{col-begin}}
+
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Fuzzy logic]]
{{col-break}}
 
 
* [[Logic]]
 
* [[Logic]]
* [[Logical value]]
+
* [[Logical value]] {{nb10}}
 
{{col-break}}
 
{{col-break}}
 
* [[Modal logic]]
 
* [[Modal logic]]
  +
* [[Multi-valued logic]]
  +
* [[Principle of bivalence]] {{nb10}}
  +
{{col-break}}
 
* [[Truth condition]]s
 
* [[Truth condition]]s
{{col-break}}
 
 
* [[Truth function]]
 
* [[Truth function]]
 
* [[Truth table]]
 
* [[Truth table]]
  +
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Criteria of truth]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
   
 
===Theories of truth===
 
===Theories of truth===
{{col-begin}}
+
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Anekantavada]]
{{col-break}}
 
  +
* [[Coherence theory of truth]]
 
* [[Coherentism]]
 
* [[Coherentism]]
* [[Coherence theory of truth]]
 
 
* [[Consensus theory of truth]]
 
* [[Consensus theory of truth]]
* [[Correspondence theory of truth]]
+
* [[Correspondence theory of truth]] {{nb10}}
 
* [[Deflationary theory of truth]]
 
* [[Deflationary theory of truth]]
 
{{col-break}}
 
{{col-break}}
Line 218: Line 322:
   
 
===Major theorists===
 
===Major theorists===
{{col-begin}}
+
{{col-begin}}{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
{{col-break}}
 
 
* [[Aristotle]]
 
* [[Aristotle]]
* [[Thomas Aquinas]]
 
 
* [[J.L. Austin]]
 
* [[J.L. Austin]]
 
* [[Brand Blanshard]]
 
* [[Brand Blanshard]]
 
* [[John Dewey]]
 
* [[John Dewey]]
 
* [[Hartry Field]]
 
* [[Hartry Field]]
* [[Jürgen Habermas]]
+
* [[Gottlob Frege]]
  +
* [[Jürgen Habermas]] {{nb10}}
  +
* [[G. W. F. Hegel]]
 
{{col-break}}
 
{{col-break}}
  +
* [[Martin Heidegger]]
  +
* [[Augustine of Hippo]]
 
* [[Paul Horwich]]
 
* [[Paul Horwich]]
 
* [[William James]]
 
* [[William James]]
 
* [[Harold Joachim]]
 
* [[Harold Joachim]]
 
* [[Saul Kripke]]
 
* [[Saul Kripke]]
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce]]
+
* [[Friedrich Nietzsche]]
  +
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce]] {{nb10}}
 
* [[Plato]]
 
* [[Plato]]
  +
{{col-break}}
 
* [[Karl Popper]]
 
* [[Karl Popper]]
{{col-break}}
 
 
* [[W.V. Quine]]
 
* [[W.V. Quine]]
 
* [[Frank P. Ramsey]]
 
* [[Frank P. Ramsey]]
 
* [[Bertrand Russell]]
 
* [[Bertrand Russell]]
  +
* [[Arthur Schopenhauer]]
 
* [[Socrates]]
 
* [[Socrates]]
 
* [[P.F. Strawson]]
 
* [[P.F. Strawson]]
Line 244: Line 353:
 
* [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]
 
* [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
  +
  +
==Notes==
  +
{{reflist|2}}
  +
  +
==References==
  +
* [[Aristotle]], "The Categories", [[Harold P. Cooke]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;1–109 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', [[Loeb Classical Library]], [[Heinemann (book publisher)|William Heinemann]], London, UK, 1938.
  +
* Aristotle, "On Interpretation", [[Harold P. Cooke]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;111–179 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
  +
* Aristotle, "[[Prior Analytics]]", [[Hugh Tredennick]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;181–531 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
  +
* Aristotle, "[[On the Soul]]" (''De Anima''), [[W. S. Hett]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;1–203 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;8'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1936.
  +
* [[Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]] (ed., 1999), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
  +
* [[James Mark Baldwin|Baldwin, James Mark]] (ed., 1901–1905), ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', 3 volumes in 4, Macmillan, New York, NY.
  +
* [[Charles A. Baylis|Baylis, Charles A.]] (1962), "Truth", pp.&nbsp;321–322 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  +
* [[A. Cornelius Benjamin|Benjamin, A. Cornelius]] (1962), "Coherence Theory of Truth", p.&nbsp;58 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  +
* Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.
  +
* [[Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar|Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan]] (1987), ''Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and Motivations in Science'', University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  +
* [[C.C. Chang|Chang, C.C.]], and [[H.J. Keisler|Keisler, H.J.]], ''Model Theory'', North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1973.
  +
* [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky, Noam]] (1995), ''The Minimalist Program'', MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* [[Alonzo Church|Church, Alonzo]] (1962a), "Name Relation, or Meaning Relation", p.&nbsp;204 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  +
* Church, Alonzo (1962b), "Truth, Semantical", p.&nbsp;322 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  +
* Clifford, W.K. (1877), "The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays". (Prometheus Books, 1999) [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html]
  +
* [[John Dewey|Dewey, John]] (1900–1901), ''Lectures on Ethics 1900–1901'', Donald F. Koch (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL.
  +
* Dewey, John (1932), ''Theory of the Moral Life'', Part 2 of John Dewey and [[James H. Tufts]], ''Ethics'', Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, 1908. 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1932. Reprinted, Arnold Isenberg (ed.), Victor Kestenbaum (pref.), Irvingtion Publishers, New York, NY, 1980.
  +
* Dewey, John (1938), ''Logic: The Theory of Inquiry'' (1938),Holt and Company, New York, NY. Reprinted, ''John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938'', [[Jo Ann Boydston]] (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1986.
  +
* Field, Hartry (2001), ''Truth and the Absence of Fact'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  +
* [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]] (1997), ''Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 1, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth'', Paul Rabinow (ed.), Robert Hurley et al. (trans.), The New Press, New York, NY.
  +
* Garfield, Jay L., and Kiteley, Murray (1991), ''Meaning and Truth: The Essential Readings in Modern Semantics'', Paragon House, New York, NY.
  +
* [[Anil Gupta|Gupta, Anil]] (2001), "Truth", in Lou Goble (ed.), ''The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic'', Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
  +
* [[Susan Haack|Haack, Susan]] (1993), ''Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology'', Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
  +
* [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas, Jürgen]] (1976), "What Is Universal Pragmatics?", 1st published, "Was heißt Universalpragmatik?", ''Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie'', [[Karl-Otto Apel]] (ed.), Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;1–68 in Jürgen Habermas, ''Communication and the Evolution of Society'', Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1979.
  +
* Habermas, Jürgen (1990), ''Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action'', Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.), Thomas McCarthy (intro.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* Habermas, Jürgen (2003), ''Truth and Justification'', Barbara Fultner (trans.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* [[Georg Hegel|Hegel, Georg]], (1977), ''[[Phenomenology of Spirit]]'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0-19-824597-1.
  +
* Horwich, Paul, (1988), ''Truth'', 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  +
* [[William James|James, William]] (1904), ''A World of Pure Experience''.<!--Publisher & Place of Publication Needed-->
  +
* James, William (1907), ''Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy'', Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, NY.
  +
* James, William (1909), ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism''', Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, NY.
  +
* James, William (1912), ''Essays in Radical Empiricism''. Cf. Chapt. 3, "The Thing and its Relations", pp.&nbsp;92–122.
  +
* [[Immanuel Kant|Kant, Immanuel]] (1800), ''Introduction to Logic''. Reprinted, [[Thomas Kingsmill Abbott]] (trans.), [[Dennis Sweet]] (intro.), Barnes and Noble, New York, NY, 2005.
  +
* [[Richard Kirkham|Kirkham, Richard L.]] (1992), ''Theories of Truth'', MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* [[William Kneale|Kneale, W.]], and [[Martha Kneale|Kneale, M.]] (1962), ''The Development of Logic'', Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1962. Reprinted with corrections, 1975.
  +
* [[Hans Kreitler|Kreitler, Hans]], and [[Shulamith Kreitler|Kreitler, Shulamith]] (1972), ''Psychology of the Arts'', Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
  +
* Le Morvan, Pierre (2004), "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", ''British Journal for the History of Philosophy'', 12 (4) 2004, 705–718, [http://www.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/ramsey_web.pdf PDF].
  +
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography)|Peirce, C.S., Bibliography]].
  +
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]], ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'', vols. 1–6, [[Charles Hartshorne]] and [[Paul Weiss (philosopher)|Paul Weiss]] (eds.), vols. 7–8, [[Arthur W. Burks]] (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as CP vol.para.
  +
* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", ''Popular Science Monthly'' 12 (1877), 1–15. Reprinted (CP 5.358–387), (CE 3, 242–257), (EP 1, 109–123). [http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html Eprint].
  +
* Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp.&nbsp;718–720 in J.M. Baldwin (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573.
  +
* [[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]] (1966), ''The Tacit Dimension'', Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY.
  +
* [[W.V. Quine|Quine, W.V.]] (1956), "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes", ''Journal of Philosophy'' 53 (1956). Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;185–196 in Quine (1976), ''Ways of Paradox''.
  +
* Quine, W.V. (1976), ''The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays'', 1st edition, 1966. Revised and enlarged edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1976.
  +
* Quine, W.V. (1980 a), ''From a Logical Point of View, Logico-Philosophical Essays'', 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* Quine, W.V. (1980 b), "Reference and Modality", pp.&nbsp;139–159 in Quine (1980 a), ''From a Logical Point of View''.
  +
* [[John Rajchman|Rajchman, John]], and [[Cornel West|West, Cornel]] (ed., 1985), ''[[Post-Analytic Philosophy]]'', Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
  +
* [[Frank Plumpton Ramsey|Ramsey, F.P.]] (1927), "Facts and Propositions", ''Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7'', 153–170. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, ''Philosophical Papers'', David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
  +
* Ramsey, F.P. (1990), ''Philosophical Papers'', David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  +
* [[John Rawls|Rawls, John]] (2000), ''Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy'', Barbara Herman (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  +
* [[Richard Rorty|Rorty, R.]] (1979), ''Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature'', Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  +
* [[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]] (1912), ''The Problems of Philosophy'', 1st published 1912. Reprinted, Galaxy Book, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1959. Reprinted, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988.
  +
* Russell, Bertrand (1918), "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", ''The Monist'', 1918. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;177–281 in ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950'', [[Robert Charles Marsh]] (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;35–155 in ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism'', [[David Pears]] (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.
  +
* Russell, Bertrand (1956), ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950'', [[Robert Charles Marsh]] (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, Routledge, London, UK, 1992.
  +
* Russell, Bertrand (1985), ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism'', [[David Pears]] (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL.
  +
* [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer, Arthur]], (1974), ''[[On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason]]'', Open Court, La Salle, IL, ISBN 0-87548-187-6.
  +
* [[Ninian Smart|Smart, Ninian]] (1969), ''The Religious Experience of Mankind'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY.
  +
* [[Alfred Tarski|Tarski, A.]], ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938'', J.H. Woodger (trans.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1956. 2nd edition, John Corcoran (ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.
  +
* [[Anthony F.C. Wallace|Wallace, Anthony F.C.]] (1966), ''Religion: An Anthropological View'', Random House, New York, NY.
  +
  +
'''Reference works'''
  +
* [[Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]] (ed., 1999), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
  +
* [[Simon Blackburn|Blackburn, Simon]] (1996), ''The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.
  +
* [[Dagobert D. Runes|Runes, Dagobert D.]] (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ, 1962.
  +
* ''Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged'' (1950), W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA. Cited as MWU.
  +
* ''Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary'' (1983), Frederick C. Mish (ed.), Merriam–Webster Inc., Springfield, MA. Cited as MWC.
   
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
{{wikiquote}}
 
{{Wiktionarypar|truth}}
 
{{Wiktionarypar|truth}}
  +
* [http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43788 An Introduction to Truth] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
* [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-04 ''Dictionary of the History of Ideas'':] Double Truth
 
  +
* [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]:
* [http://www.galilean-library.org/int10.html An Introduction to Truth] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
 
*[http://spot.colorado.edu/~damnjano/briefhistory.pdf A brief history of truth by Nic Damjanovich]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ Truth]
 
*Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
 
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ Coherence theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ Coherence theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ Correspondence theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ Correspondence theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Deflationary theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Deflationary theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Identity theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Identity theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Revision theory of truth]
+
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision/ Revision theory of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/ Tarski's definition of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/ Tarski's definition of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/ Axiomatic theories of truth]
 
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/ Axiomatic theories of truth]
  +
* [http://www.formalontology.it/heidegger-aletheia.htm Heidegger on Truth (Aletheia) as Unconcealment]
  +
* [http://www.formalontology.it/aletheia.htm History of Truth: The Greek "Aletheia"]
  +
* [http://www.formalontology.it/veritas.htm History of Truth: The Latin "Veritas"]
   
* [http://uk.geocities.com/frege@btinternet.com/cantor/joachim.htm Harold Joachim's The Nature of Truth]
 
* [http://www.akhand-jyoti.org/ArticlesMarApr03/Truth.html Truth Alone Will Triumph - Hindu Viewpoint]
 
   
{{Philosophy navigation}}
+
{{Philosophy topics}}
  +
{{Theories of Truth}}
  +
{{metaphysics}}
  +
{{epistemology}}
   
  +
<!--
[[Category:Core issues in ethics]]
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Metaphysics]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical concepts]]
 
[[Category:Ethics]]
 
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
 
 
{{Link FA|is}}
 
{{Link FA|is}}
   
[[be:Ісціна]]
+
[[ar:حقيقة]]
  +
[[an:Verdat]]
  +
[[gn:Añete]]
  +
[[zh-min-nan:Chin-lí]]
  +
[[be-x-old:Ісьціна]]
  +
[[bs:Istina]]
  +
[[bg:Истина]]
  +
[[ca:Veritat]]
 
[[cs:Pravda]]
 
[[cs:Pravda]]
  +
[[da:Sandhed]]
 
[[de:Wahrheit]]
 
[[de:Wahrheit]]
[[eo:Vero]]
 
[[es:Verdad]]
 
 
[[et:Tõde]]
 
[[et:Tõde]]
  +
[[es:Verdad]]
  +
[[eo:Vero]]
  +
[[eu:Egia (kontzeptu filosofikoa)]]
  +
[[fa:حقیقت]]
 
[[fr:Vérité]]
 
[[fr:Vérité]]
 
[[ga:Fírinne]]
 
[[ga:Fírinne]]
  +
[[gan:真理]]
[[he:אמת ושקר (פילוסופיה)]]
 
[[hu:Igazság]]
+
[[xal:Үнн]]
  +
[[ko:진리]]
  +
[[hy:Ճշմարտություն]]
  +
[[hr:Istina]]
  +
[[id:Kebenaran]]
  +
[[ia:Veritate]]
 
[[is:Sannleikur]]
 
[[is:Sannleikur]]
[[it:verità]]
+
[[it:Verità]]
  +
[[he:אמת ושקר (פילוסופיה)]]
[[ja:真理]]
 
  +
[[ku:Rastî]]
 
[[la:Veritas]]
 
[[la:Veritas]]
  +
[[lt:Tiesa]]
  +
[[hu:Igazság]]
 
[[mk:Вистина]]
 
[[mk:Вистина]]
[[nl:waarheid]]
+
[[ml:സത്യം]]
  +
[[mr:सत्य]]
  +
[[arz:حقيقه]]
  +
[[ms:Kebenaran]]
  +
[[nl:Waarheid]]
  +
[[new:सत्य]]
  +
[[ja:真理]]
 
[[no:Sannhet]]
 
[[no:Sannhet]]
  +
[[nn:Sanning]]
  +
[[nrm:Véritaé]]
  +
[[oc:Vertat]]
  +
[[pnb:سچ]]
 
[[pl:Prawda]]
 
[[pl:Prawda]]
 
[[pt:Verdade]]
 
[[pt:Verdade]]
 
[[ro:Adevăr]]
 
[[ro:Adevăr]]
  +
[[qu:Chiqap]]
 
[[ru:Истина]]
 
[[ru:Истина]]
[[sv:Sanning]]
+
[[sah:Кырдьык]]
  +
[[sq:E vërteta]]
  +
[[simple:Truth]]
  +
[[sk:Pravdivosť]]
  +
[[sl:Resnica]]
  +
[[ckb:ڕاستی]]
  +
[[sr:Истина]]
  +
[[sh:Istina]]
 
[[fi:Totuus]]
 
[[fi:Totuus]]
  +
[[sv:Sanning]]
  +
[[tl:Katotohanan]]
  +
[[ta:உண்மை]]
  +
[[te:నిజం]]
 
[[th:ความจริง]]
 
[[th:ความจริง]]
  +
[[tr:Gerçek]]
  +
[[uk:Істина]]
  +
[[vi:Chân lý]]
  +
[[wa:Vraiye]]
  +
[[war:Kamatuoran]]
  +
[[yi:אמת]]
 
[[zh:真理]]
 
[[zh:真理]]
  +
-->
{enWP|Truth}}
 
  +
{{enWP|Truth}}
  +
[[Category:Core issues in ethics]]
  +
[[Category:Epistemology]]
  +
[[Category:Philosophy]]
  +
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
  +
[[Category:Philosophical concepts]]
  +
[[Category:Political philosophy]]

Latest revision as of 14:18, 17 April 2012

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Philosophy Index: Aesthetics · Epistemology · Ethics · Logic · Metaphysics · Consciousness · Philosophy of Language · Philosophy of Mind · Philosophy of Science · Social and Political philosophy · Philosophies · Philosophers · List of lists


File:Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy.jpg

Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy, François Lemoyne, 1737

Truth can have a variety of meanings, from the state of being the case, being in accord with a particular fact or reality, being in accord with the body of real things, events, actuality, or fidelity to an original or to a standard. In archaic usage it could be fidelity, constancy or sincerity in action, character, and utterance.[1] The term has no single definition yet about which over fifty percent of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories and views of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

Nomenclature and etymology

Further information: Veritas and Aletheia

The English word truth is from Old English tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ, Middle English trewþe, cognate to Old High German triuwida, Old Norse tryggð. Like troth, it is a -th nominalisation of the adjective true (Old English tréowe).

The English word true is from Old English (West Saxon) (ge)tríewe, tréowe, cognate to Old Saxon (gi)trûui, Old High German (ga)triuwu (Modern German treu "faithful"), Old Norse tryggr, Gothic triggws,[2] all from a Proto-Germanic *trewwj- "having good faith". Old Norse trú, "faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"[3] (archaic English troth "loyalty, honesty, good faith", compare Ásatrú).

Thus, 'truth' involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity",[4] and that of "agreement with fact or reality", in Anglo-Saxon expressed by sōþ.

All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth "fidelity" and truth "factuality". To express "factuality", North Germanic opted for nouns derived from sanna "to assert, affirm", while continental West Germanic (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of wâra "faith, trust, pact" (cognate to Slavic věra "(religious) faith", but influenced by Latin verus). Romance languages use terms following the Latin veritas, while the Greek aletheia and Slavic pravda have separate etymological origins.

The major theories of truth

The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be considered true, whether by a single person or an entire society, is dealt with by the five major substantive theories introduced below. Each theory presents perspectives that are widely shared by published scholars.[5][6] There also have more recently arisen "deflationary" or "minimalist" theories of truth based on the idea that the application of a term like true to a statement does not assert anything significant about it, for instance, anything about its nature, but that the label truth is a tool of discourse used to express agreement, to emphasize claims, or to form certain types of generalizations.[5][7][8]

Substantive theories

File:Truth-Warner-Highsmith.jpeg

Truth, holding a mirror and a serpent (1896). Olin Levi Warner, Library of Congress Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

Correspondence theory

Main article: Correspondence theory of truth

For the truth to correspond it must first be proved by evidence or an individuals valid opinion, which have similar meaning or context.[9] This type of theory posits a relationship between thoughts or statements on the one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model which goes back at least to some of the classical Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.[10] This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle solely by how it relates to "things", by whether it accurately describes those "things". An example of correspondence theory is the statement by the Thirteenth Century philosopher/theologian Thomas Aquinas: Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus ("Truth is the equation [or adequation] of things and intellect"), a statement which Aquinas attributed to the Ninth Century neoplatonist Isaac Israeli.[11][12] Aquinas also restated the theory as: “A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality” [13]

Correspondence theory practically operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying what was much later called "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.[14] Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors.[5][15] For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words that are not easily translatable into another. The German word Zeitgeist is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word fails to accurately capture its full meaning (this is a problem with many abstract words, especially those derived in agglutinative languages). Thus, some words add an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate truth predicate. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is Alfred Tarski, whose semantic theory is summarized further below in this article.[16]

Proponents of several of the theories below have gone further to assert that there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal power struggles, community interactions, personal biases and other factors involved in deciding what is seen as truth.

Coherence theory

Main article: Coherence theory of truth

For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, though, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system.[17] A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.

Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics.[18] However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate axiomatically independent and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various alternative geometries. On the whole, coherence theories have been criticized as lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the natural world, empirical data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.[19]

Coherence theories distinguish the thought of rationalist philosophers, particularly of Spinoza, Leibniz, and G.W.F. Hegel, along with the British philosopher F.H. Bradley.[20] They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.

Constructivist theory

Main article: Constructivist epistemology

Social constructivism holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including race, sexuality, and gender are socially constructed.

Giambattista Vico was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom – verum ipsum factum – "truth itself is constructed". Hegel and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is, or can be, socially constructed. Marx, like many critical theorists who followed, did not reject the existence of objective truth but rather distinguished between true knowledge and knowledge that has been distorted through power or ideology. For Marx scientific and true knowledge is 'in accordance with the dialectical understanding of history' and ideological knowledge 'an epiphenomenal expression of the relation of material forces in a given economic arrangement'.[21]

Consensus theory

Main article: Consensus theory of truth

Consensus theory holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a subset thereof consisting of more than one person.

Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher Jürgen Habermas.[22] Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.[23] Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.[24]

Pragmatic theory

Main article: Pragmatic theory of truth

The three most influential forms of the pragmatic theory of truth were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by Charles Sanders Peirce, William James, and John Dewey. Although there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice.[25]

Peirce defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."[26] This statement emphasizes Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as fallibilism and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like concordance and correspondence to describe one aspect of the pragmatic sign relation, he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than nominal definitions, which he accords a lower status than real definitions.

William James's version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."[27] By this, James meant that truth is a quality the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to actual practice (thus, "pragmatic").

John Dewey, less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that inquiry, whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical or cultural, is self-corrective over time if openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine and/or refute proposed truths.[28]

Minimalist (deflationary) theories

Main article: Deflationary theory of truth

A number of philosophers reject the thesis that the concept or term truth refers to a real property of sentences or propositions. These philosophers are responding, in part, to the common use of truth predicates (e.g., that some particular thing "...is true") which was particularly prevalent in philosophical discourse on truth in the first half of the 20th century. From this point of view, to assert the proposition “'2 + 2 = 4' is true” is logically equivalent to asserting the proposition “2 + 2 = 4”, and the phrase “is true” is completely dispensable in this and every other context. These positions are broadly described

  • as deflationary theories of truth, since they attempt to deflate the presumed importance of the words "true" or truth,
  • as disquotational theories, to draw attention to the disappearance of the quotation marks in cases like the above example, or
  • as minimalist theories of truth.[5][29]

Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "[t]he predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis."[5] Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility, deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. Among the theoretical concerns of these views is to explain away those special cases where it does appear that the concept of truth has peculiar and interesting properties. (See, e.g., Semantic paradoxes, and below.)

In addition to highlighting such formal aspects of the predicate "is true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless sentence:

Michael says, 'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red or he says ... etc.

This assertion can also be succinctly expressed by saying: What Michael says is true.[30]

Performative theory of truth

Attributed to P. F. Strawson is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow is white' is true" is to perform the speech act of signaling one's agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. Consider, for example, that when the bride says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, she is performing the act of taking this man to be her lawful wedded husband. She is not describing herself as taking this man, but actually doing so (perhaps the most thorough analysis of such "perlocutionary" statements is J. L. Austin, "How to Do Things With Words"[31]).

Strawson holds that a similar analysis is applicable to all speech acts, not only to special perlocutionary ones: "To say a statement is true is not to make a statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with, accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that 'it's raining.'"[32]

Redundancy and related theories

Main article: Redundancy theory of truth

According to the redundancy theory of truth, asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, making the assertion that " 'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting "Snow is white". Redundancy theorists infer from this premise that truth is a redundant concept; that is, it is merely a word that is traditionally used in conversation or writing, generally for emphasis, but not a word that actually equates to anything in reality. This theory is commonly attributed to Frank P. Ramsey, who held that the use of words like fact and truth was nothing but a roundabout way of asserting a proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment was merely a "linguistic muddle".[5][33][34]

A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modified form of Tarski's schema: To say that '"P" is true' is to say that P. Yet another version of deflationism is the prosentential theory of truth, first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and Nuel Belnap as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's raining", are prosentences, expressions that merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that it means the same as my dog in the sentence My dog was hungry, so I fed it, That's true is supposed to mean the same as It's raining — if you say the latter and I then say the former. These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is not a property, but rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P" may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are minimalizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as "that's true."[5]

Deflationary principles do not apply to representations that are not analogous to sentences, and also do not apply to many other things that are commonly judged to be true or otherwise. Consider the analogy between the sentence "Snow is white" and the character named Snow White, both of which can be true in some sense. To a minimalist, saying "Snow is white is true" is the same as saying "Snow is white," but to say "Snow White is true" is not the same as saying "Snow White."

Pluralist theories

Main article: Pluralist theories of truth

Several of the major theories of truth hold that there is a particular property the having of which makes a belief or proposition true. Pluralist theories of truth assert that there may be more than one property that makes propositions true: ethical propositions might be true by virtue of coherence. Propositions about the physical world might be true by corresponding to the objects and properties they are about.

Some of the pragmatic theories, such as those by Charles Peirce and William James, included aspects of correspondence, coherence and constructivist theories.[26][27] Crispin Wright argued in his 1992 book Truth and Objectivity that any predicate which satisfied certain platitudes about truth qualified as a truth predicate. In some discourses, Wright argued, the role of the truth predicate might be played by the notion of superassertibility.[35] Michael Lynch, in a 2009 book Truth as One and Many, argued that we should see truth as a functional property capable of being multiply manifested in distinct properties like correspondence or coherence. [36]

Most believed theories

According to a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views which was carried out in November 2009 (taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students) 44.9% of respondents accept or lean towards correspondence theories, 20.7% accept or lean towards deflationary theories and 13.8% epistemic theories.[37]

Formal theories

Truth in logic

Main article: Logical truth

Logic is concerned with the patterns in reason that can help tell us if a proposition is true or not. However, logic does not deal with truth in the absolute sense, as for instance a metaphysician does. Logicians use formal languages to express the truths which they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some interpretation or truth within some logical system.

A logical truth (also called an analytic truth or a necessary truth) is a statement which is true in all possible worlds[38] or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a fact (also called a synthetic claim or a contingency) which is only true in this world as it has historically unfolded. A proposition such as “If p and q, then p.” is considered to be logical truth because it is true because of the meaning of the symbols and words in it and not because of any facts of any particular world. They are such that they could not be untrue.

Truth in mathematics

Main article: Model theory

There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the model theory of truth and the proof theory of truth[How to reference and link to summary or text].

Historically, with the nineteenth century development of Boolean algebra mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In propositional logic, these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of axioms and rules of inference, often given in the form of truth tables.

In addition, from at least the time of Hilbert's program at the turn of the twentieth century to the proof of Gödel's theorem and the development of the Church-Turing thesis in the early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were generally assumed to be those statements which are provable in a formal axiomatic system.

The works of Kurt Gödel, Alan Turing, and others shook this assumption, with the development of statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.[39] Two examples of the latter can be found in Hilbert's problems. Work on Hilbert's 10th problem led in the late twentieth century to the construction of specific Diophantine equations for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution,[40] or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, Hilbert's first problem was on the continuum hypothesis.[41] Gödel and Paul Cohen showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard axioms of set theory and a finite number of proof steps.[42] In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.

Semantic theory of truth

The semantic theory of truth has as its general case for a given language:

'P' is true if and only if P

where 'P' is a reference to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the sentence itself.

Logician and philosopher Alfred Tarski developed the theory for formal languages (such as formal logic). Here he restricted it in this way: no language could contain its own truth predicate, that is, the expression is true could only apply to sentences in some other language. The latter he called an object language, the language being talked about. (It may, in turn, have a truth predicate that can be applied to sentences in still another language.) The reason for his restriction was that languages that contain their own truth predicate will contain paradoxical sentences like the Liar: This sentence is not true. See The Liar paradox. As a result Tarski held that the semantic theory could not be applied to any natural language, such as English, because they contain their own truth predicates. Donald Davidson used it as the foundation of his truth-conditional semantics and linked it to radical interpretation in a form of coherentism.

Bertrand Russell is credited with noticing the existence of such paradoxes even in the best symbolic formalizations of mathematics in his day, in particular the paradox that came to be named after him, Russell's paradox. Russell and Whitehead attempted to solve these problems in Principia Mathematica by putting statements into a hierarchy of types, wherein a statement cannot refer to itself, but only to statements lower in the hierarchy. This in turn led to new orders of difficulty regarding the precise natures of types and the structures of conceptually possible type systems that have yet to be resolved to this day.

Kripke's theory of truth

Saul Kripke contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to construct one as follows:

  • Begin with a subset of sentences of a natural language that contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is false"). So The barn is big is included in the subset, but not " The barn is big is true", nor problematic sentences such as "This sentence is false".
  • Define truth just for the sentences in that subset.
  • Then extend the definition of truth to include sentences that predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So "The barn is big is true" is now included, but not either "This sentence is false" nor "'The barn is big is true' is true".
  • Next, define truth for all sentences that predicate truth or falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated infinitely, so that truth is defined for The barn is big; then for "The barn is big is true"; then for "'The barn is big is true' is true", and so on.

Notice that truth never gets defined for sentences like This sentence is false, since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts the Principle of bivalence: every sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in deriving the Liar paradox, the paradox is dissolved.[43]

View of truth as somebody

Expressing the serious view of Christians, especially the Catholic Church, not limited to truth in matters of religion, Father John Corapi repeatedly states and is frequently quoted as stating (with minor variations in wording) that "The Truth is not a something. It is a Somebody. And His Name is Jesus Christ.”[44] Christians cite the Gospel of John, in which Jesus Christ is quoted as telling Thomas the Apostle that "I am the way, the truth, and the life."[45] The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that "God ... is the truth"[46] and that "the whole of God's truth" is manifest in His son, Jesus Christ.[47] "He is the Truth." [emphasis in original][48] Ancient Egyptians held "In a hymn to Amon-Re, the creator and sustainer of the world, Ma’at equates with truth: Thy Mother is Truth, O Amon!" In Zoroastrian theology, the angel Rashnu, who presides at the "ordeal court", is truth personified. [49] Islamic prophecy projects: "All glory will come after his advent. He will be the personification of Truth and Uprightness, as if Allah had descended from the Heaven." (Tazkira, Page 691)

Notable views

Truth

La Vérité ("Truth") by Jules Joseph Lefebvre

Ancient history

The ancient Greek origins of the words "true" and "truth" have some consistent definitions throughout great spans of history that were often associated with topics of logic, geometry, mathematics, deduction, induction, and natural philosophy.

Socrates', Plato's and Aristotle's ideas about truth are commonly seen as consistent with correspondence theory. In his Metaphysics, Aristotle stated: “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true”.[50] The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy proceeds to say of Aristotle:

Aristotle sounds much more like a genuine correspondence theorist in the Categories (12b11, 14b14), where he talks of “underlying things” that make statements true and implies that these “things” (pragmata) are logically structured situations or facts (viz., his sitting, his not sitting). Most influential is his claim in De Interpretatione (16a3) that thoughts are “likenessess” (homoiosis) of things. Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought's likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind.[50]

Very similar statements can also be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b).[50]

Medieval age

Avicenna

In early Islamic philosophy, Avicenna (Ibn Sina) defined truth in his Metaphysics of Healing, Book I, Chapter 8, as:

What corresponds in the mind to what is outside it.[51]

Avicenna elaborated on his definition of truth in his Metaphysics Book Eight, Chapter 6:

The truth of a thing is the property of the being of each thing which has been established in it.[52]

However, this definition is merely a translation of the Latin translation from the Middle Ages.[53] A modern translation of the original Arabic text states:

Truth is also said of the veridical belief in the existence [of something].[54]

Aquinas

Following Avicenna, and also Augustine and Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas stated in his Disputed Questions on Truth:

A natural thing, being placed between two intellects, is called true insofar as it conforms to either. It is said to be true with respect to its conformity with the divine intellect insofar as it fulfills the end to which it was ordained by the divine intellect... With respect to its conformity with a human intellect, a thing is said to be true insofar as it is such as to cause a true estimate about itself.[55]

Thus, for Aquinas, the truth of the human intellect (logical truth) is based on the truth in things (ontological truth).[56] Following this, he wrote an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view in his Summa I.16.1:

Veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei.
(Truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things.)

Aquinas also said that real things participate in the act of being of the Creator God who is Subsistent Being, Intelligence, and Truth. Thus, these beings possess the light of intelligibility and are knowable. These things (beings; reality) are the foundation of the truth that is found in the human mind, when it acquires knowledge of things, first through the senses, then through the understanding and the judgement done by reason. For Aquinas, human intelligence ("intus", within and "legere", to read) has the capability to reach the essence and existence of things because it has a non-material, spiritual element, although some moral, educational, and other elements might interfere with its capability.

Modern age

Kant

Immanuel Kant (painted portrait)

Immanuel Kant

Immanuel Kant discussed the correspondence theory of truth[50] in the following manner, criticizing correspondence theory as circular reasoning.

Truth is said to consist in the agreement of knowledge with the object. According to this mere verbal definition, then, my knowledge, in order to be true, must agree with the object. Now, I can only compare the object with my knowledge by this means, namely, by taking knowledge of it. My knowledge, then, is to be verified by itself, which is far from being sufficient for truth. For as the object is external to me, and the knowledge is in me, I can only judge whether my knowledge of the object agrees with my knowledge of the object. Such a circle in explanation was called by the ancients Diallelos. And the logicians were accused of this fallacy by the sceptics, who remarked that this account of truth was as if a man before a judicial tribunal should make a statement, and appeal in support of it to a witness whom no one knows, but who defends his own credibility by saying that the man who had called him as a witness is an honourable man.[57]

According to Kant, the definition of truth as correspondence is a "mere verbal definition", here making use of Aristotle's distinction between a nominal definition: a definition in name only, and a real definition: a definition that shows the true cause or essence of the term that is being defined. From Kant's account of the history, the definition of truth as correspondence was already in dispute from classical times, the "skeptics" criticizing the "logicians" for a form of circular reasoning, though the extent to which the "logicians" actually held such a theory is not evaluated.[57]

Hegel

Hegel tried to distance his philosophy from psychology by presenting truth as being an external self–moving object instead of being related to inner, subjective thoughts. Hegel's truth is analogous to the mechanics of a material body in motion under the influence of its own inner force. "Truth is its own self–movement within itself."[58] Teleological truth moves itself in the three–step form of dialectical triplicity toward the final goal of perfect, final, absolute truth. For Hegel, the progression of philosophical truth is a resolution of past oppositions into increasingly more accurate approximations to absolute truth. Chalybäus used the terms "thesis," "antithesis," and "synthesis" to describe Hegel's dialectical triplicity. The "thesis" consists of an incomplete historical movement. To resolve the incompletion, an "antithesis" occurs which opposes the "thesis." In turn, the "synthesis" appears when the "thesis" and "antithesis" become reconciled and a higher level of truth is obtained. This "synthesis" thereby becomes a "thesis," which will again necessitate an "antithesis," requiring a new "synthesis" until a final state is reached as the result of reason's historical movement. History is the Absolute Spirit moving toward a goal. This historical progression will finally conclude itself when the Absolute Spirit understands its own infinite self at the very end of history. Absolute Spirit will then be the complete expression of an infinite God.

Schopenhauer

For Schopenhauer,[59] a judgment is a combination or separation of two or more concepts. If a judgment is to be an expression of knowledge, it must have a sufficient reason or ground by which the judgment could be called true. Truth is the reference of a judgment to something different from itself which is its sufficient reason (ground). Judgments can have material, formal, transcendental, or metalogical truth. A judgment has material truth if its concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called logical or formal. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has transcendental truth.

Kierkegaard

When Søren Kierkegaard, as his character Johannes Climacus, wrote that "Truth is Subjectivity", he does not advocate for subjectivism in its extreme form (the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so), but rather that the objective approach to matters of personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.[60]

While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are continuing and dynamic. The truth of one's existence is a living, inward, and subjective experience that is always in the process of becoming. The values, morals, and spiritual approaches a person adopts, while not denying the existence of objective truths of those beliefs, can only become truly known when they have been inwardly appropriated through subjective experience. Thus, Kierkegaard criticizes all systematic philosophies which attempt to know life or the truth of existence via theories and objective knowledge about reality. As Kierkegaard claims, human truth is something that is continually occurring, and a human being cannot find truth separate from the subjective experience of one's own existing, defined by the values and fundamental essence that consist of one's way of life.[61]

Nietzsche

Friedrich Nietzsche believed the search for truth or 'the will to truth' was a consequence of the will to power of philosophers. He thought that truth should be used as long as it promoted life and the will to power, and he thought untruth was better than truth if it had this life enhancement as a consequence. As he wrote in Beyond Good and Evil, "The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding..." (aphorism 4). He proposed the will to power as a truth only because according to him it was the most life affirming and sincere perspective one could have.

Robert Wicks discusses Nietzsche's basic view of truth as follows:

Some scholars regard Nietzsche's 1873 unpublished essay, "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" ("Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn") as a keystone in his thought. In this essay, Nietzsche rejects the idea of universal constants, and claims that what we call "truth" is only "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms." His view at this time is that arbitrariness completely prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the very artistic transference of nerve stimuli into images; "truth" is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes, especially those of repose, security and consistence.[62]

Whitehead

Wikiquote-logo-en
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:

Alfred North Whitehead a British mathematician who became an American philosopher, said: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that play the devil".

The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since half-truths are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion.

Nishida

According to Kitaro Nishida, "knowledge of things in the world begins with the differentiation of unitary consciousness into knower and known and ends with self and things becoming one again. Such unification takes form not only in knowing but in the valuing (of truth) that directs knowing, the willing that directs action, and the feeling or emotive reach that directs sensing."[63]

Fromm

Erich Fromm finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal truth". He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one's environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in "a strange and powerful world". The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in "Man from Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics" (1947), from which excerpts are included below.

the dichotomy between 'absolute = perfect' and 'relative = imperfect' has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where "it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles".
In that respect, "a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of a desired result". The history of science is "a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation."
As a result "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period." Fromm furthermore notes that "different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth" and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.

Foucault

Truth, for Michel Foucault, is problematic when any attempt is made to see truth as an "objective" quality. He prefers not to use the term truth itself but "Regimes of Truth". In his historical investigations he found truth to be something that was itself a part of, or embedded within, a given power structure. Thus Foucault's view shares much in common with the concepts of Nietzsche. Truth for Foucault is also something that shifts through various episteme throughout history.[64]

Baudrillard

Jean Baudrillard considered truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He took his cue from iconoclasts who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated the fact that God did not exist.[65] Baudrillard wrote in "Precession of the Simulacra":

The simulacrum is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
—Ecclesiastes[66][67]

Some examples of simulacra that Baudrillard cited were: that prisons simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (eg, Watergate) simulate that corruption is corrected; Disney simulates that the U.S. itself is an adult place. One must remember that though such examples seem extreme, such extremity is an important part of Baudrillard's theory. For a less extreme example, consider how movies usually end with the bad being punished, humiliated, or otherwise failing, thus affirming for viewers the concept that the good end happily and the bad unhappily, a narrative which implies that the status quo and institutionalised power structures are largely legitimate.[65]


See also

Template:Wikipedia-Books

Truth in logic

  • Modal logic
  • Multi-valued logic
  • Principle of bivalence Template:Nb10

  • Criteria of truth

Theories of truth

Major theorists

Notes

  1. Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, truth, 2005
  2. see Holtzmann's law for the -ww- : -gg- alternation.
  3. A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic, Geir T. Zoëga (1910), Northvegr.org
  4. OED on true has "Steadfast in adherence to a commander or friend, to a principle or cause, to one's promises, faith, etc.; firm in allegiance; faithful, loyal, constant, trusty; Honest, honourable, upright, virtuous, trustworthy; free from deceit, sincere, truthful " besides "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity; Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is; Real, genuine; rightly answering to the description; properly so called; not counterfeit, spurious, or imaginary."
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., "Truth", auth: Michael Williams, p572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)
  6. Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.
  7. Horwich, Paul, Truth, (2nd edition, 1988),
  8. Field, Hartry, Truth and the Absence of Fact (2001).
  9. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 (Macmillan, 1969) Prior uses Bertrand Russell's wording in defining correspondence theory. According to Prior, Russell was substantially responsible for helping to make correspondence theory widely known under this name.
  10. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223-224 Macmillan, 1969)
  11. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p224, Macmillan, 1969.
  12. "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  13. "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (citing De Veritate Q.1, A.1&3; cf. Summa Theologiae Q.16).
  14. See, e.g., Bradley, F.H., "On Truth and Copying", in Blackburn, et al. (eds., 1999),Truth, 31-45.
  15. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 ff. Macmillan, 1969). See especially, section on "Moore's Correspondence Theory", 225-226, "Russell's Correspondence Theory", 226-227, "Remsey and Later Wittgenstein", 228-229, "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230-231.
  16. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, p223 ff. Macmillan, 1969). See the section on "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230-231.
  17. Immanuel Kant, for instance, assembled a controversial but quite coherent system in the early 19th century, whose validity and usefulness continues to be debated even today. Similarly, the systems of Leibniz and Spinoza are characteristic systems that are internally coherent but controversial in terms of their utility and validity.
  18. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p130-131 (Macmillan, 1969)
  19. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p131-133, see esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions" (Macmillan, 1969)
  20. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p130
  21. May, Todd, 1993, Between Genealogy and Epistemology: Psychology, politics in the thought of Michel Foucault' with reference to Althusser and Balibar, 1970
  22. See, e.g., Habermas, Jürgen, Knowledge and Human Interests (English translation, 1972).
  23. See, e.g., Habermas, Jürgen, Knowledge and Human Interests (English translation, 1972), esp. PART III, pp 187 ff.
  24. Rescher, Nicholas, Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus (1995).
  25. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.5, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth", 427 (Macmillan, 1969).
  26. 26.0 26.1 Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp. 716–720 in James Mark Baldwin, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, v. 2. Peirce's section is entitled "Logical", beginning on p. 718, column 1, and ending on p. 720 with the intials "(C.S.P.)", see Google Books Eprint. Reprinted, Collected Papers v. 5, pp. 565–573.
  27. 27.0 27.1 James, William, The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism', (1909).
  28. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, "Dewey, John", auth Richard J. Bernstein, p383 (Macmillan, 1969)
  29. Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), Truth in the Introductory section of the book.
  30. Kirkham, Theories of Truth, MIT Press, 1992.
  31. J. L. Austin, "How to Do Things With Words". Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975
  32. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6: Performative Theory of Truth, auth: Gertrude Ezorsky, p88 (Macmillan, 1969)
  33. Ramsey, F.P. (1927), "Facts and Propositions", Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–170. Reprinted, pp. 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990
  34. Le Morvan, Pierre. (2004) "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", The British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12(4), pp. 705-718.
  35. Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.
  36. Truth as One and Many (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).
  37. http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium
  38. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
  39. See, e.g., Chaitin, Gregory L., The Limits of Mathematics (1997) esp. 89 ff.
  40. M. Davis. "Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable." American Mathematical Monthly 80, pp. 233-269, 1973
  41. Yandell, Benjamin H.. The Honors Class. Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers (2002).
  42. Chaitin, Gregory L., The Limits of Mathematics (1997) 1-28, 89 ff.
  43. Kripke, Saul. "Outline of a Theory of Truth", Journal of Philosophy, 72 (1975), 690-716
  44. See, for example, Father John Corapi's Easter Triduum.
  45. John 14:6.
  46. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2464.
  47. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2466.
  48. Catechism of the Catholic Church #2466.
  49. [1].
  50. 50.0 50.1 50.2 50.3 David, Marion (2005). "Correspondence Theory of Truth" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  51. Osman Amin (2007), "Influence of Muslim Philosophy on the West", Monthly Renaissance 17 (11).
  52. Jan A. Aertsen (1988), Nature and Creature: Thomas Aquinas's Way of Thought, p. 152. BRILL, ISBN 9004084517.
  53. Simone van Riet. Liber de philosophia prima, sive Scientia divina (in Latin).
  54. (2005) Avicenna: The Metaphysics of The Healing, Brigham Young University Press.
  55. Disputed Questions on Truth, 1, 2, c, reply to Obj. 1. Trans. Mulligan, McGlynn, Schmidt, Truth, vol. I, pp. 10-12.
  56. "Veritas supra ens fundatur" (Truth is founded on being). Disputed Questions on Truth, 10, 2, reply to Obj. 3.
  57. 57.0 57.1 Kant, Immanuel (1800), Introduction to Logic. Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Dennis Sweet (intro.) (2005)
  58. "Die Wahrheit ist die Bewegung ihrer an ihr selbst." The Phenomenology of Spirit, Preface, ¶ 48
  59. On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, §§ 29–33
  60. Kierkegaard, Søren. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992
  61. Watts, Michael. Kierkegaard, Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003
  62. Robert Wicks, Friedrich Nietzsche - Early Writings: 1872-1876, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  63. John Maraldo, Nishida Kitarô - Self-Awareness, in: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)
  64. Foucault, M. "The Order of Things", London: Vintage Books, 1970 (1966)
  65. 65.0 65.1 Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994.
  66. Baudrillard, Jean. "Simulacra and Simulations", in Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster, Stanford University Press, 1988) 166 ff
  67. Baudrillard's attribution of this quote to Ecclesiastes is deliberately fictional. "Baudrillard attributes this quote to Ecclesiastes. However, the quote is a fabrication (see Jean Baudrillard. Cool Memories III, 1991-95. London: Verso, 1997). Editor’s note: In Fragments: Conversations With François L’Yvonnet. New York: Routledge, 2004:11, Baudrillard acknowledges this 'Borges-like' fabrication." Cited in footnote #4 in Smith, Richard G., "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations", International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, Volume 2, Number 1 (January 2005)

References

  • Aristotle, "The Categories", Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 1–109 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
  • Aristotle, "On Interpretation", Harold P. Cooke (trans.), pp. 111–179 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
  • Aristotle, "Prior Analytics", Hugh Tredennick (trans.), pp. 181–531 in Aristotle, Volume 1, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
  • Aristotle, "On the Soul" (De Anima), W. S. Hett (trans.), pp. 1–203 in Aristotle, Volume 8, Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1936.
  • Audi, Robert (ed., 1999), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
  • Baldwin, James Mark (ed., 1901–1905), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, 3 volumes in 4, Macmillan, New York, NY.
  • Baylis, Charles A. (1962), "Truth", pp. 321–322 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  • Benjamin, A. Cornelius (1962), "Coherence Theory of Truth", p. 58 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  • Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), Truth, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.
  • Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan (1987), Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and Motivations in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
  • Chang, C.C., and Keisler, H.J., Model Theory, North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1973.
  • Chomsky, Noam (1995), The Minimalist Program, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Church, Alonzo (1962a), "Name Relation, or Meaning Relation", p. 204 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  • Church, Alonzo (1962b), "Truth, Semantical", p. 322 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
  • Clifford, W.K. (1877), "The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays". (Prometheus Books, 1999) [2]
  • Dewey, John (1900–1901), Lectures on Ethics 1900–1901, Donald F. Koch (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL.
  • Dewey, John (1932), Theory of the Moral Life, Part 2 of John Dewey and James H. Tufts, Ethics, Henry Holt and Company, New York, NY, 1908. 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1932. Reprinted, Arnold Isenberg (ed.), Victor Kestenbaum (pref.), Irvingtion Publishers, New York, NY, 1980.
  • Dewey, John (1938), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry (1938),Holt and Company, New York, NY. Reprinted, John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938, Jo Ann Boydston (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1986.
  • Field, Hartry (2001), Truth and the Absence of Fact, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  • Foucault, Michel (1997), Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 1, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Paul Rabinow (ed.), Robert Hurley et al. (trans.), The New Press, New York, NY.
  • Garfield, Jay L., and Kiteley, Murray (1991), Meaning and Truth: The Essential Readings in Modern Semantics, Paragon House, New York, NY.
  • Gupta, Anil (2001), "Truth", in Lou Goble (ed.), The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
  • Haack, Susan (1993), Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.
  • Habermas, Jürgen (1976), "What Is Universal Pragmatics?", 1st published, "Was heißt Universalpragmatik?", Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie, Karl-Otto Apel (ed.), Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Reprinted, pp. 1–68 in Jürgen Habermas, Communication and the Evolution of Society, Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Beacon Press, Boston, MA, 1979.
  • Habermas, Jürgen (1990), Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.), Thomas McCarthy (intro.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Habermas, Jürgen (2003), Truth and Justification, Barbara Fultner (trans.), MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Hegel, Georg, (1977), Phenomenology of Spirit, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, ISBN 0-19-824597-1.
  • Horwich, Paul, (1988), Truth, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK.
  • James, William (1904), A World of Pure Experience.
  • James, William (1907), Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy, Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, NY.
  • James, William (1909), The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism', Longmans, Green, and Company, New York, NY.
  • James, William (1912), Essays in Radical Empiricism. Cf. Chapt. 3, "The Thing and its Relations", pp. 92–122.
  • Kant, Immanuel (1800), Introduction to Logic. Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Dennis Sweet (intro.), Barnes and Noble, New York, NY, 2005.
  • Kirkham, Richard L. (1992), Theories of Truth, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Kneale, W., and Kneale, M. (1962), The Development of Logic, Oxford University Press, London, UK, 1962. Reprinted with corrections, 1975.
  • Kreitler, Hans, and Kreitler, Shulamith (1972), Psychology of the Arts, Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
  • Le Morvan, Pierre (2004), "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 12 (4) 2004, 705–718, PDF.
  • Peirce, C.S., Bibliography.
  • Peirce, C.S., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, vols. 1–6, Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss (eds.), vols. 7–8, Arthur W. Burks (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as CP vol.para.
  • Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", Popular Science Monthly 12 (1877), 1–15. Reprinted (CP 5.358–387), (CE 3, 242–257), (EP 1, 109–123). Eprint.
  • Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp. 718–720 in J.M. Baldwin (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573.
  • Polanyi, Michael (1966), The Tacit Dimension, Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY.
  • Quine, W.V. (1956), "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes", Journal of Philosophy 53 (1956). Reprinted, pp. 185–196 in Quine (1976), Ways of Paradox.
  • Quine, W.V. (1976), The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays, 1st edition, 1966. Revised and enlarged edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1976.
  • Quine, W.V. (1980 a), From a Logical Point of View, Logico-Philosophical Essays, 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Quine, W.V. (1980 b), "Reference and Modality", pp. 139–159 in Quine (1980 a), From a Logical Point of View.
  • Rajchman, John, and West, Cornel (ed., 1985), Post-Analytic Philosophy, Columbia University Press, New York, NY.
  • Ramsey, F.P. (1927), "Facts and Propositions", Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–170. Reprinted, pp. 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1990.
  • Ramsey, F.P. (1990), Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
  • Rawls, John (2000), Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, Barbara Herman (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  • Rorty, R. (1979), Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
  • Russell, Bertrand (1912), The Problems of Philosophy, 1st published 1912. Reprinted, Galaxy Book, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1959. Reprinted, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988.
  • Russell, Bertrand (1918), "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", The Monist, 1918. Reprinted, pp. 177–281 in Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, pp. 35–155 in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.
  • Russell, Bertrand (1956), Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, UK, 1956. Reprinted, Routledge, London, UK, 1992.
  • Russell, Bertrand (1985), The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL.
  • Schopenhauer, Arthur, (1974), On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, Open Court, La Salle, IL, ISBN 0-87548-187-6.
  • Smart, Ninian (1969), The Religious Experience of Mankind, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, NY.
  • Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, J.H. Woodger (trans.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1956. 2nd edition, John Corcoran (ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.
  • Wallace, Anthony F.C. (1966), Religion: An Anthropological View, Random House, New York, NY.

Reference works

  • Audi, Robert (ed., 1999), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
  • Blackburn, Simon (1996), The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.
  • Runes, Dagobert D. (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy, Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ, 1962.
  • Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged (1950), W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA. Cited as MWU.
  • Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (1983), Frederick C. Mish (ed.), Merriam–Webster Inc., Springfield, MA. Cited as MWC.

External links

Wikiquote-logo-en
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to:
Wiktionary-logo-en
Look up truth in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.


  1. redirectTemplate:Philosophy
This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).