Difference between revisions of "Truth" - New World Encyclopedia

From New World Encyclopedia
 
(54 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{claimed}}
+
{{Edboard}}{{Approved}}{{Images OK}}{{Submitted}}{{Paid}}{{Copyedited}}{{2Copyedited}}
There is no single definition of truth about which the majority of philosophers agree. Many [[theories]] of truth, commonly involving different definitions of "truth," continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; what roles do 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.
+
[[Image:Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy.jpg|right|thumb|''Time Saving Truth from Falsehood and Envy.'' [[François Lemoyne]], 1737]]
  
==The major theories==
+
The [[semantic field|meaning]] of the word '''truth''' extends from [[honesty]], [[good faith]], and [[sincerity]] in general, to agreement with [[fact]] or [[reality]] in particular. The term has no single [[definition]] that the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree on, as various [[theories]] of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on questions regarding truth, such as what constitutes truth, 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 in [[philosophy]].
Questions about what is a proper basis on which to decide whether and to what extent words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may be said to be true, whether for a single person, or an entire community or society, are among the many questions addressed by the theories introduced below.
+
{{toc}}
 +
In religious contexts, truth is often attributed to the divine origin and associated as being [[eternity|eternal]], [[absolute]], and [[immutability|immutable]]. Truth is also understood not only as a matter of conceptual understanding, but as an issue of embodiment, which involves an [[existentialism|existential]] way of being, religious experience, or way of living. An example is in [[Jesus]]' words "I am the truth" that indicate an inseparable relationship between truth and human existence.  
  
Each of the five substantive theories below deal with truth as something with a nature, a phenomenon, or thing, or type of human experience about which significant things can be said.  These theories each present perspectives that are widely agreed by published scholars to apply in some way to a broad set of occurrences that can be observed in human interaction, or which offer significant, stable explanations for issues related to the idea of truth in human experience.<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>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., "Truth," auth: Michael Williams, p572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref><ref>Horwich, Paul, ''Truth'', (2nd edition, 1988),</ref><ref>Field, Hartry, ''Truth and the Absence of Fact'' (2001).</ref>
+
==Etymology==
 +
{{see|Veritas|Aletheia}}
 +
English ''[[: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'').
  
===Substantive theories of truth===
+
The English word ''[[:wikt:true|true]]'' is derived from the Old English ([[West Saxon]]) word ''(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]]."
====Correspondence theory====
+
Old Norse ''{{lang|is|trú}},'' means "faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"<ref>Zoega (1910) [http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h442.php Zoëga's A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic], ''Northvegr Foundation''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref> (archaic English ''[[:wikt:troth|troth]]'' "loyalty, honesty, good faith," compare ''{{lang|is|[[Ásatrú]]}}'').
  
The '''correspondence theory of truth''' states that something (for example, a proposition or statement or sentence) is rendered [[truth|true]] by the existence of a [[fact]] with corresponding elements and a similar structure. The theory maintains that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined only by how it relates to the world, and whether it accurately describes (i.e., corresponds with) that world. The theory presupposes an [[Objectivity (philosophy)|objective]] world and is therefore antagonistic to theories that problematise objectivity such as [[external world skepticism]] or [[metaphysical subjectivism]].
+
Thus, ''truth'' in its original sense is 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 the narrowed sense "in agreement with [[fact]] or [[reality]]," in Anglo-Saxon expressed by ''[[:wikt:sōþ|sōþ]]'', is a secondary development coupled to the process of "[[Age of Enlightenment|Enlightenment]]" in seventeenth century philosophy.<ref>Attested since the early seventeenth century, e.g., [[Shakespeare]] in ''[[As You Like It]]'' (5.4) has "If there be truth in sight, you are my daughter.";  [[William Prynne]] in his ''A briefe survay and censure of Mr Cozens his couzening devotions'' (1628) has "I haue here sufficiently euidenced the trueth of this Assertion." Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref>
  
=====Examples=====
+
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 continuing Latin ''veritas,'' while Greek with ''[[aletheia]]'' and Slavic with ''[[:wikt:pravda|pravda]]'' have unrelated terms.
A practical example of correspondence is as follows. There is a [[true]] distance to the moon when we humans attempt to go there, and this true distance is necessary to [[know]] so that the journey can be successfully made. Another example of how some words can accurately describe the world around us, especially by [[demonstration]], is the ability to teach a child that cars move at certain speeds, and that one can judge the proper [[time]] to cross the road or highway based on real [[distances]] and [[speeds]].  [[Plato]] and other classical [[philosophers]] helped to teach the idea of true or false statements in [[deduction]]s and [[induction]]s, especially in the studies of [[logic]], [[math]], [[geometry]], [[astronomy]], [[architecture]], and [[natural philosophy]].
 
  
Problems with the theory arise from consideration of precisely what is supposed to correspond with what. If a statement is just a sentence then it is merely a physical thing (for example, ink on a page, or sound waves in the air) with no intrinsic meaning. Therefore it is usually claimed that it is the [[proposition]] (or ''meaning'') expressed by a statement that is supposed to correspond with the facts. Yet both these "[[entities]]," propositions and facts, may be unappealing to [[nominalism|minimalists]] who refuse to admit such [[Wiktionary:abstract|abstract]] entities to their [[ontology]]. Also, precisely defining what constitutes [[correspondence]] is also a problem.
+
==The major theories of truth==
  
=====Philosopher's views=====
+
Questions about what is a proper basis on which to decide how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be said to constitute truth, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many questions addressed by the theories introduced below.
[[Immanuel Kant]] discussed the correspondence theory of truth in the following manner:
 
  
<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.(Kant, 45)</blockquote>
+
Each of the five substantive theories below deal with truth as something with a nature, a phenomenon, or thing, or type of human experience about which significant things can be said. These theories each present perspectives that are widely agreed by published scholars to apply in some way to a broad set of occurrences that can be observed in human interaction, or which offer significant, stable explanations for issues related to the idea of truth in human experience.<ref name=EPT>Michael Williams, ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy,'' Supp., "Truth," 572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref><ref>Simon Blackburn and Keith Simmons, (eds.), ''Truth.'' (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999). 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>Paul Horwich. ''Truth,'' 2nd ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 0198752245),</ref><ref>Hartry Field. ''Truth and the Absence of Fact.'' (2001).</ref>
  
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 thing whose term 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.
+
===Substantive theories===
 +
====Correspondence theory====
  
The most commonly cited problem for the correspondence theory is defining the [[relation]] of correspondence, and ''when'' a proposition corresponds with the facts. [[Bertrand Russell]], and shortly after, [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], suggested that proposition and fact "correspond" when their structure is [[isomorphic]]. See [[Richard Kirkham]]'s book cited below for a discussion of this view.
+
{{main|Correspondence theory of truth}}
  
====Coherence theory====
+
Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.<ref>Arthur N. Prior, "Correspondence Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' (Macmillan, 1969), 223. 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. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</ref> This type of theory attempts to posit 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>Arthur N. Prior, "Correspondence Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' (Macmillan, 1969), 223-224. </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 [[objective reality]], by whether it accurately describes that reality. For example, there is a [[true]] distance to the moon when we humans attempt to go there, and this true distance is necessary to [[know]] so that the journey can be successfully made.
There is no single '''coherence theory of truth''', but rather an assortment of perspectives that are commonly collected under this title. In general, coherence theory sees truth as coherence with some specified set of sentences, propositions or beliefs. 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. In general, then, 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 considered to be critical factor in judging its utility and validity.
+
 
 +
Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.<ref>F. H. Bradley, "On Truth and Copying," in Blackburn, et al. (eds.), ''Truth,'' (1999), 31-45.</ref> More modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. 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, the language itself adds 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.
  
According to one view, the coherence theory of truth is the "theory of knowledge which maintains that truth is a property primarily applicable to any extensive body of consistent propositions, and derivatively applicable to any one proposition in such a system by virtue of its part in the system" (Benjamin 1962).  Ideas like this are a part of the philosophical perspective known as ''[[holism|theoretical holism]]'' (Quine & Ullian 1978).  However, coherence theories of truth do not claim merely that coherence and consistency are important features of a theoretical system — they claim that these properties are ''sufficient'' to its truth.
+
Proponents of several of the theories below have gone farther 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.
  
According to another version of coherence theory, championed especially by [[H.H. Joachim]], truth is a ''systematic coherence'' that involves more than logical consistency.  In this view, a proposition is true to the extent that it is a necessary constituent of a systematically coherent whole.  Others of this school of thought, for example, [[Brand Blanshard]], hold that this whole must be so interdependent that every element in it necessitates, and even entails, every other element.  Exponents of this view infer that the most complete truth is a property solely of a unique coherent system, called the ''absolute'', and that humanly knowable propositions and systems have a degree of truth that is proportionate to how fully they approximate this ideal.  (Baylis 1962).
+
====Coherence theory====
  
Some versions of coherence theory have been 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> A claim like this needs to be qualified by the observation that 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>
+
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 nineteenth 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. Retrieved November 10, 2007.</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.  
  
Coherence theories distinguish the thought of continental [[rationalism|rationalist]] philosophers, especially [[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]].
+
Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to characterize the essential and intrinsic properties of formal systems in logic and mathematics.<ref>Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 130-131. </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>Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 131-133, ''see'' esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions." </ref>
  
Perhaps the best-known objection to a coherence theory of truth is [[Bertrand Russell]]'s. Russell maintained that since both a belief and its [[negation]] will, individually, cohere with at least one set of beliefs, this means that contradictory beliefs can be shown to be true according to coherence theory, and therefore that the theory cannot work. However, what most coherence theorists are concerned with is not all possible beliefs, but the set of beliefs that people actually hold. The main problem for a coherence theory of truth, then, is how to specify just this particular set, given that the truth of which beliefs are actually held can only be determined by means of coherence.
+
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>Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' 130.</ref> They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of [[logical positivism]], notably [[Otto Neurath]] and [[Carl Hempel]].
  
 
====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]], [[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 epistemological orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom—''verum ipsum factum''—"truth itself is constructed." [[Hegel]], Garns, and [[Marx]] were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.
+
[[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]], [[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—''verum ipsum factum''—"truth itself is constructed." [[Hegel]], Garns, and [[Marx]] were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.
  
 
====Consensus theory====  
 
====Consensus theory====  
A '''consensus theory of truth''' is any [[theory of truth ]] that refers to a [[concept]] of [[consensus]] as a part of its concept of [[truth]].
 
 
=====Consensus gentium=====
 
An ancient criterion of truth, the ''[[consensus gentium]]'' ([[Latin]]: ''agreement of the people''), states "that which is universal among men carries the weight of truth" (Ferm, 64).  A number of consensus theories of truth are based on variations of this principle.  In some criteria the notion of universal consent is taken strictly, while others qualify the terms of consensus in various ways.  There are versions of consensus theory in which the specific population weighing in on a given question, the proportion of the population required for consent, and the period of time needed to declare consensus vary from the classical norm.
 
 
=====Consensus as a regulative ideal=====
 
 
A ''[[descriptive theory]]'' is one that tells how things are, while a ''[[normative theory]]'' tells how things ought to be.  Expressed in practical terms, a normative theory, more properly called a ''[[policy]]'', tells agents how they ought to act.  A policy can be an absolute imperative, telling agents how they ought to act in any case, or it can be a contingent directive, telling agents how they ought to act ''if'' they want to achieve a particular goal.  A policy is frequently stated in the form of a piece of advice called a ''[[heuristic]]'', a ''[[maxim (philosophy)|maxim]]'', a ''[[norm (philosophy)|norm]]'', a ''[[rule]]'', a ''[[slogan]]'', and so on.  Other names for a policy are a ''recommendation'' and a ''[[regulative principle]]''.
 
 
A regulative ideal can be expressed in the form of a description, but what it describes is an ideal state of affairs, a condition of being that constitutes its aim, end, goal, intention, or objective.  It is not the usual case for the actual case to be the ideal case, or else there would hardly be much call for a policy aimed at achieving an ideal.
 
  
Corresponding to the distinction between actual conditions and ideal conditions there is a distinction between actual consensus and ideal consensus.  A theory of truth founded on a notion of actual consensus is a very different thing from a theory of truth founded on a notion of ideal consensus.  Moreover, an ideal consensus may be ideal in several different ways.  The state of consensus may be ideal in its own nature, conceived in the matrix of actual experience by way of intellectual operations like abstraction, extrapolation, and limit formation.  Or the conditions under which the consensus is conceived to be possible may be formulated as idealizations of actual conditions.  A very common type of ideal consensus theory refers to a community that is an idealization of actual communities in one or more respects.
+
[[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.
  
=====Critique of consensus theories=====
+
Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher [[Jürgen Habermas]], who maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.<ref>Jürgen Habermas, ''Knowledge and Human Interests,'' English translation by Jeremy J. Shapiro, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972. ISBN 0807015415), esp. PART III, 187 ''ff.''</ref> Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher [[Nicholas Rescher]].<ref>Nicholas Rescher. ''Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus.'' (Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0198236018).</ref>
It is very difficult to find any philosopher of note who asserts a ''bare'', ''naive'', or ''pure'' consensus theory of truth, in other words, a treatment of truth that is based on actual consensus in an actual community without further qualification. Bare consensus theories are frequent topics of discussion, however, evidently because they serve the function of reference points for the discussion of alternative theories.
 
  
 
====Pragmatic theory====
 
====Pragmatic theory====
'''''Pragmatic theory of truth''''' refers to those accounts, definitions, and theories of the concept ''[[truth]]'' that distinguish the philosophies of [[pragmatism]] and [[pragmaticism]].  The conception of truth in question varies along lines that reflect the influence of several thinkers, initially and notably, [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[William James]], and [[John Dewey]], but a number of common features can be identified.  The most characteristic features are (1) a reliance on the ''[[pragmatic maxim]]'' as a means of clarifying the meanings of difficult concepts, ''truth'' in particular, and (2) an emphasis on the fact that the ''[[poiesis|product]]'' variously branded as ''[[belief]]'', ''[[certainty]]'', ''[[knowledge]]'', or ''truth'' is the result of a ''[[process]]'', namely, ''[[inquiry]]''.
 
 
=====Background=====
 
 
Pragmatic theories of truth enter on a stage that was set by the philosophies of former ages, with special reference to the [[Ancient philosophy|Golden Age]], the [[Scholastics]], and [[Immanuel Kant]].  Recalling a few elements of this background can provide invaluable insight into the play of ideas that developed into modern times.  And because pragmatic ideas about truth are often confused with a number of quite distinct notions, it is useful say a few words about these other theories, and to highlight the points of significant contrast.
 
 
In one classical formulation, truth is defined as the good of [[logic]], where logic is a [[normative science]], that is, an [[inquiry]] into a ''good'' or a ''[[Value (personal and cultural)|value]]'' that seeks [[knowledge]] of it and the means to achieve it.  In this view, truth cannot be discussed to much effect outside the context of inquiry, knowledge, and logic, all very broadly considered.
 
 
Most inquiries into the character of truth begin with a notion of an informative, meaningful, or significant element, the truth of whose information, meaning, or significance may be put into question and needs to be evaluated.  Depending on the context, this element might be called an ''artefact'', ''expression'', ''image'', ''impression'', ''lyric'', ''mark'', ''performance'', ''picture'', ''sentence'', ''sign'', ''string'', ''symbol'', ''text'', ''thought'', ''token'', ''utterance'', ''word'', ''work'', and so on.  Whatever the case, one has the task of judging whether the bearers of information, meaning, or significance are indeed ''truth-bearers''.  This judgment is typically expressed in the form of a specific ''truth predicate'', whose positive application to a sign, or so on, asserts that the sign is true.
 
 
Considered within the broadest horizon, there is little reason to imagine that the process of judging a ''work'', that leads to a predication of false or true, is necessarily amenable to formalization, and it may always remain what is commonly called a ''judgment call''.  But there are indeed many well-circumscribed domains where it is useful to consider disciplined forms of evaluation, and the observation of these limits allows for the institution of what is called a ''[[method]]'' of judging truth and falsity.
 
 
One of the first questions that can be asked in this setting is about the relationship between the significant performance and its reflective critique.  If one expresses oneself in a particular fashion, and someone says "that's true," is there anything useful at all that can be said in general terms about the relationship between these two acts?  For instance, does the critique add value to the expression criticized, does it say something significant in its own right, or is it just an insubstantial echo of the original sign?
 
 
Theories of truth may be described according to several dimensions of description that affect the character of the predicate "true."  The truth predicates that are used in different theories may be classified by the number of things that have to be mentioned in order to assess the truth of a sign, counting the sign itself as the first thing.  In formal logic, this number is called the ''[[arity]]'' of the predicate.  The kinds of truth predicates may then be subdivided according to any number of more specific characters that various theorists recognize as important. 
 
 
# A ''monadic'' truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject — typically a concrete representation or its abstract content — independently of reference to anything else.  In this case one can say that a truth bearer is true in and of itself.
 
# A ''dyadic'' truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject only in reference to something else, a second subject.  Most commonly, the auxiliary subject is either an ''object'', an ''interpreter'', or a ''language'' to which the representation bears some [[relation (mathematics)|relation]].
 
# A ''triadic'' truth predicate is one that applies to its main subject only in reference to a second and a third subject.  For example, in a pragmatic theory of truth, one has to specify both the object of the sign, and either its interpreter or another sign called the ''interpretant'' before one can say that the sign is true ''of'' its object ''to'' its interpreting agent or sign. 
 
 
Several qualifications must be kept in mind with respect to any such radically simple scheme of classification, as real practice seldom presents any pure types, and there are settings in which it is useful to speak of a theory of truth that is "almost" ''k''-adic, or that "would be" ''k''-adic if certain details can be abstracted away and neglected in a particular context of discussion.  That said, given the generic division of truth predicates according to their arity, further species can be differentiated within each genus according to a number of more refined features.
 
 
The truth predicate of interest in a typical [[correspondence theory of truth]] tells of a relation between representations and objective states of affairs, and is therefore expressed, for the most part, by a dyadic predicate.  In general terms, one says that a representation is ''true of'' an objective situation, more briefly, that a sign is true of an object.  The nature of the correspondence may vary from theory to theory in this family.  The correspondence can be fairly arbitrary or it can take on the character of an ''[[analogy]]'', an ''[[icon]]'', or a ''[[morphism]]'', whereby a representation is rendered true of its object by the existence of corresponding elements and a similar structure.
 
 
=====Peirce=====
 
Very little in Peirce's thought can be understood in its proper light without understanding that he thinks all thoughts are signs, and thus, according to his theory of thought, no thought is understandable outside the context of a [[sign relation]].  Sign relations taken collectively are the subject matter of a [[theory]] of [[sign (semiotic)|sign]]s.  So Peirce's ''[[semeiotic]]'', his theory of sign relations, is key to understanding his entire philosophy of pragmatic thinking.
 
 
In his contribution to the article "Truth and Falsity and Error" for [[James Mark Baldwin|Baldwin]]'s ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'' (1901), Peirce defines truth in the following way:
 
 
<blockquote>
 
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.  (Peirce 1901, CP 5.565).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
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 occasionally 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 follows long tradition in relegating to a lower status than ''real'' definitions.
 
 
<blockquote>
 
That truth is the correspondence of a representation with its object is, as [[Kant]] says, merely the nominal definition of it.  Truth belongs exclusively to propositions.  A proposition has a subject (or set of subjects) and a predicate.  The subject is a sign;  the predicate is a sign;  and the proposition is a sign that the predicate is a sign of that of which the subject is a sign.  If it be so, it is true.  But what does this correspondence or reference of the sign, to its object, consist in?  (Peirce 1906, CP 5.553).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
Here Peirce makes a statement that is decisive for understanding the relationship between his pragmatic definition of truth and any theory of truth that leaves it solely and simply a matter of representations corresponding with their objects.  Peirce, like Kant before him, recognizes [[Aristotle]]'s distinction between a ''[[nominal definition]]'', a definition in name only, and a ''[[real definition]]'', one that states the function of the concept, the [[vera causa|reason]] for conceiving it, and so indicates the ''[[essence]]'', the underlying ''[[substance]]'' of its object.  This tells us the sense in which Peirce entertained a ''[[correspondence theory of truth]]'', namely, a purely nominal sense.  To get beneath the superficiality of the nominal definition it is necessary to analyze the notion of correspondence in greater depth.
 
 
In preparing for this task, Peirce makes use of an allegorical story, omitted here, the moral of which is that there is no use seeking a conception of truth that we cannot conceive ourselves being able to capture in a humanly conceivable concept.  So we might as well proceed on the assumption that we have a real hope of comprehending the answer, of being able to "handle the truth" when the time comes.  Bearing that in mind, the problem of defining truth reduces to the following form:
 
 
<blockquote>
 
Now thought is of the nature of a sign.  In that case, then, if we can find out the right method of thinking and can follow it out — the right method of transforming signs — then truth can be nothing more nor less than the last result to which the following out of this method would ultimately carry us.  In that case, that to which the representation should conform, is itself something in the nature of a representation, or sign — something noumenal, intelligible, conceivable, and utterly unlike a thing-in-itself.  (Peirce 1906, CP 5.553).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
Peirce's theory of truth depends on two other, intimately related subject matters, his theory of ''[[sign relation]]s'' and his theory of ''[[inquiry]]''.  Inquiry is special case of ''[[semiosis]]'', a process that transforms signs into signs while maintaining a specific relationship to an object, which object may be located outside the trajectory of signs or else be found at the end of it.  Inquiry includes all forms of [[belief revision]] and [[logical inference]], including ''[[scientific method]]'', what Peirce here means by "the right method of transforming signs."  A sign-to-sign transaction relating to an object is a transaction that involves three parties, or a relation that involves three roles.  This is called a ''[[triadic relation|ternary or triadic relation]]'' in logic.  Consequently, pragmatic theories of truth are largely expressed in terms of triadic truth predicates.
 
 
The statement above tells us one more thing:  Peirce, having started out in accord with Kant, is here giving notice that he is parting ways with the Kantian idea that the ultimate object of a representation is an unknowable ''[[thing-in-itself]]''.  Peirce would say that the object is knowable, in fact, it is known in the form of its representation, however imperfectly or partially.
 
 
''Reality'' and ''truth'' are coordinate concepts in pragmatic thinking, each being defined in relation to the other, and both together as they participate in the time evolution of inquiry.  Inquiry is not a disembodied process, nor the occupation of a singular individual, but the common life of an unbounded community.
 
 
<blockquote>
 
The real, then, is that which, sooner or later, information and reasoning would finally result in, and which is therefore independent of the vagaries of me and you.  Thus, the very origin of the conception of reality shows that this conception essentially involves the notion of a COMMUNITY, without definite limits, and capable of an indefinite increase of knowledge.  (Peirce 1868, CP 5.311).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
<blockquote>
 
Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion.  This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a foreordained goal, is like the operation of destiny.  No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion.  This great law is embodied in the conception of truth and reality.  The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real.  That is the way I would explain reality.  (Peirce 1878, CP 5.407).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
=====James=====
 
[[William James]]'s version of the pragmatic theory 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=WJMT>James, William. ''The Meaning of Truth'' (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 a synthesis of [[correspondence theory of truth]] and [[coherence theory of truth]], with an added dimension.  Truth is verifiable to the extent that thoughts and statements correspond with actual things, as well as "hangs together," or coheres, fits as pieces of a puzzle might fit together, and these are in turn verified by the observed results of the application of an idea to actual practice.  <ref name=WJMT/><ref name=WJP>James, William. ''Pragmatism'', 1907</ref><ref> James, William.  ''A World of Pure Experience'' (1904). </ref><ref> James, William. ''Essays in Radical Empiricism'', Ch.3: "The Thing and it's Relations" (1912): 92-122. </ref><ref>Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth," p427-428 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref> James said that "all true processes must lead to the face of directly verifying sensible experiences somewhere." <ref>James, William, ''Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking'' Lect. 6, "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth," (1907) </ref> He also 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 />
 
 
<blockquote>
 
Truth, as any dictionary will tell you, is a property of certain of our ideas.  It means their 'agreement', as falsity means their disagreement, with 'reality'.  Pragmatists and intellectualists both accept this definition as a matter of course.  They begin to quarrel only after the question is raised as to what may precisely be meant by the term 'agreement', and what by the term 'reality', when reality is taken as something for our ideas to agree with.  (James 1907, 198).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
William James (1907) begins his chapter on "Pragmatism's Conception of Truth" in much the same letter and spirit as the above selection from Peirce (1906), noting the nominal definition of truth as a plausible point of departure, but immediately observing that the pragmatist's quest for the meaning of truth can only begin, not end there.
 
 
<blockquote>
 
The popular notion is that a true idea must copy its reality.  Like other popular views, this one follows the analogy of the most usual experience.  Our true ideas of sensible things do indeed copy them.  Shut your eyes and think of yonder clock on the wall, and you get just such a true picture or copy of its dial.  But your idea of its 'works' (unless you are a clockmaker) is much less of a copy, yet it passes muster, for it in no way clashes with reality.  Even though it should shrink to the mere word 'works', that word still serves you truly;  and when you speak of the 'time-keeping function' of the clock, or of its spring's 'elasticity', it is hard to see exactly what your ideas can copy.  (James 1907, 199).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
James exhibits a knack for popular expression that Peirce seldom sought, and here his analysis of correspondence by way of a simple thought experiment cuts right to the quick of the first major question to ask about it, namely:  To what extent is the notion of correspondence involved in truth covered by the ideas of analogues, copies, or iconic images of the thing represented?  The answer is that the iconic aspect of correspondence can be taken literally only in regard to sensory experiences of the more precisely eidetic sort.  When it comes to the kind of correspondence that might be said to exist between a symbol, a word like "works," and its object, the springs and catches of the clock on the wall, then the pragmatist recognizes that a more than nominal account of the matter still has a lot more explaining to do.
 
 
=====Dewey=====
 
[[John Dewey]], less broadly than William James but much more broadly than Charles 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" p383 (Macmillan, 1969) </ref> In his ''Logic: The Theory of Inquiry'' (1938), Dewey gave the following definition of inquiry:
 
 
<blockquote>
 
Inquiry is the controlled or directed transformation of an indeterminate situation into one that is so determinate in its constituent distinctions and relations as to convert the elements of the original situation into a unified whole.  (Dewey, p. 108).
 
</blockquote>
 
 
The index of the same book has exactly one entry under the heading ''truth'', and it refers to the following footnote:
 
 
<blockquote>
 
The bestdefinition of ''truth'' from the logical standpoint which is known to me is that by Peirce:  "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real [CP 5.407].  (Dewey, 343 ''n'').
 
</blockquote>
 
 
Dewey says more of what he understands by ''truth'' in terms of his preferred concept of ''[[warranted assertibility]]'' as the end-in-view and conclusion of inquiry (Dewey, 14–15).
 
 
=====Criticism=====
 
Several objections are commonly made to pragmatist account of truth, of either sort. 
 
 
First, due originally to [[Bertrand Russell]] (1907) in a discussion of James's theory, is that pragmatism mixes up the notion of truth with ''epistemology''. Pragmatism describes an ''indicator'' or a ''sign'' of truth.  It really cannot be regarded as a theory of the ''meaning'' of the word "true." There's a difference between ''stating an indicator'' and ''giving the meaning''. For example, when the streetlights turn at the end of a day, that's an [[indicator]], a sign, that evening is coming on.  It would be an obvious mistake to say that the word "evening" just means "the time that the streetlights turn on."  In the same way, while it might be an ''indicator'' of truth, that a proposition is part of that perfect science at the ideal limit of inquiry, that just isn't what "truth" ''means''.
 
 
Russell's objection isn't so much an [[Logical argument|argument]] against [[pragmatism]], so much as it is a [[request]] — that we make sure that we aren't confusing an ''indicator'' of truth with the ''meaning'' of the concept truth. There is a difference between the two and pragmatism confuses them. 
 
  
Other objections to pragmatism include how we define what it means to say a [[belief]] "works," or that it is "useful to believe." The vague usage of these terms, first popularized by James, has led to much debate.
+
The three most influential forms of the ''pragmatic theory of truth'' were introduced around the turn of the twentieth century by [[Charles Peirce|Charles S. 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>"Pragmatic Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.5,'' (Macmillan, 1969), 427.</ref> 
  
Another objection — which can be applied to all of the epistemic theories — is that pragmatism appears to be incompatible with the T-scheme mentioned above (and Tarski's inductive definition, in relation to the connectives ~, & and so on). According to the T-scheme, if ~A is true, then A is not true. But presumably both a proposition A and its negation ~A might be useful to believe, which contradicts the T-scheme. For any determinate proposition A, either A is true or ~A is true. But it might be that neither is useful to believe. And so on.
+
[[Charles 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>C.S. Peirce, (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), 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.
  
A final objection is that pragmatism of James's variety (and [[Richard Rorty|Rorty]]'s) entails relativism. What is useful for ''you'' to believe might not be useful for ''me'' to believe. It follows that "truth" for you is different from "truth" for me (and that the relevant facts don't matter). This is relativism.  
+
[[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>William James. ''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").  
  
A viable, more sophisticated consensus theory of truth, a mixture of Peircean theory with [[speech-act theory]] and social theory, is that presented and defended by [[Jürgen Habermas]], which sets out the universal pragmatic conditions of ideal consensus and responds to many objections to earlier versions of a pragmatic, consensus theory of truth.  Habermas distinguishes explicitly between factual consensus, i.e. the beliefs that happen to hold in a particular community, and rational consensus, i.e. consensus attained in conditions approximating an "[[ideal speech situation]]," in which inquirers or members of a community suspend or bracket prevailing beliefs and engage in rational discourse aimed at truth and governed by the force of the better argument, under conditions in which all participants in discourse have equal opportunities to engage in constative (assertions of fact), normative, and expressive speech acts, and in which discourse is not distorted by the [[intervention]] of [[power (sociology)|power]] or the [[internalization]] of systematic blocks to [[communication]].
+
[[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>Richard J. Bernstein, "Dewey, John," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2,'' (Macmillan, 1969), 383. </ref>
  
===Minimalist (deflationary) theories of truth===
+
===Minimalist (deflationary) theories===
{{main|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  
+
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 twentieth 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 ''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 ''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>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>
+
*as ''minimalist'' theories of truth.<ref>Blackburn and Simmons, 1999, in the Introductory section of the book.</ref><ref name=EPT/>
  
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.)
+
Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "the 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:  
 
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.
But it can be expressed succinctly by saying: ''Whatever 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."<ref>Kirkham, ''Theories of Truth.'' (MIT Press, 1992).</ref>  
  
 
====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 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. 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. 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>Gertrude Ezorsky, "Performative Theory of Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6,'' (Macmillan, 1969), 88.</ref>
  
 
====Redundancy and related theories====
 
====Redundancy and related theories====
{{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, 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>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>Michael Williams, "Truth," ''Encyclopedia of Philosophy,'' Supp., (Macmillan, 1996), 572-573. </ref><ref>F.P. Ramsey, (1927), "Facts and Propositions," ''Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7,'' 153–170. (Reprinted, in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers,'' David Hugh Mellor (ed.), (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 34–51. </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, 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 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."
  
==Formal theories of truth==
+
==Formal theories==
 
===Truth in mathematics===
 
===Truth in mathematics===
 
{{main|Model theory|Proof theory}}
 
{{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]]''.
+
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]].''
  
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 table]]s.
+
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 [[symbol]]s 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.
+
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.
+
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>Gregory L. Chaitin. ''The Limits of Mathematics.'' (1997)(Springer, 2002. ISBN 1852336684), 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 (1973): 233-269, </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>Benjamin H. Yandell. ''The Honors Class: Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers.'' (London: AK Peters, 2003. ISBN 1568812167).</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>Gregory L. Chaitin. ''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===
 
===Semantic theory of truth===
Line 213: Line 106:
 
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.
  
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 [[Liar paradox|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 (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]] used it as the foundation of his [[truth-conditional semantics]] and linked it to [[radical interpretation]] in a form of [[coherentism]].
+
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 [[Liar paradox|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 (philosopher)|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 [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]] attempted to solve these problems in ''[[Principia Mathematica]]'' by putting statements into a hierarchy of [[type theory|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 system]]s that have yet to be resolved to this day.
+
[[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 [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]] attempted to solve these problems in ''[[Principia Mathematica]]'' by putting statements into a hierarchy of [[type theory|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 system]]s that have yet to be resolved to this day.
  
 
===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."  
+
* 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.  
 
* 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."  
+
* 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.  
+
* 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>
+
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 as 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>Saul Kripke, "Outline of a Theory of Truth," ''Journal of Philosophy'' 72 (1975): 690-716. </ref>
  
==Some notable philosophers' views of truth==
+
==Notable philosophers' views==
[[Image:Truth.jpg|thumb|120px|''La Vérité'' ("Truth") by [[Jules Joseph Lefebvre]]]]
+
[[Image:Truth.jpg|thumb|120px|''La Vérité'' ("Truth") by [[Jules Joseph Lefebvre]] 1870. Oil on canvas ]]
 
===Classical philosophers===
 
===Classical philosophers===
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]], [[math]], [[deduction]], [[induction]], and [[natural philosophy]].  
+
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 (philosophy)|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”.<ref name=StanfordCorr>David, Marion (2005) "Correspondence Theory of Truth" in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy at [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#1]</ref> The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy proceeds to say of Aristotle:
+
[[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”.<ref name=StanfordCorr>Marion David, (2005) [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#1 "Correspondence Theory of Truth"], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref> The ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' proceeds to say of Aristotle:
 
<blockquote>
 
<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>
 
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>
  
Very similar statements can also be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b).<ref name=StanfordCorr/>
+
Very similar statements can also be found in [[Plato]] (''Cratylus'' 385b2, ''Sophist'' 263b).<ref name=StanfordCorr/>
  
 
===Aquinas===
 
===Aquinas===
  
[[Thomas Aquinas]] said that ''veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei,'' [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm Summa I.16.1] truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things, an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view.  
+
[[Thomas Aquinas]] said that ''veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei,''<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm Summa I.16.1 Question 16. Truth], ''Catholic Encyclopedia''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref> truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things, an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view.
  
 
===Kant===
 
===Kant===
  
[[Immanuel Kant]] discussed the correspondence theory of truth in the following manner. Kant's criticism of correspondence theory is one of numerous examples of why so many thinkers who examine the question of truth are not satisfied to rest with this first theory that usually comes to mind.[[Image:Kant_2.jpg|thumb|125px|right|Immanuel Kant]]
+
[[Immanuel Kant]] discussed the correspondence theory of truth in the following manner. Kant's criticism of correspondence theory is one of numerous examples of why so many thinkers who examine the question of truth are not satisfied to rest with this first theory that usually comes to mind.
<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>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, [[Definition#Essence|a definition that shows the true cause or essence of the thing whose term 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>Kant, Immanuel (1800), Introduction to Logic. Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott (trans.), Dennis Sweet (intro.) (2005)</ref>
 
 
 
===Hegel===
 
Hegel addressed the paradoxical nature of consciousness wanting a complete and whole truth, yet most minds cannot move forward without drawing a distinction. That process of determining between two opposing sides, argument and counter-argument, forces a new truth based on the pressure of resting on one distinction. That process of alternating between two sides, Thesis and Antithesis, evolves into a Synthesis leading to some new truth.{{Fact|date=October 2006}}
 
  
Others have written that, for Hegel, Truth is an Ontological Concept.{{Fact|date=October 2006}} That truth is not a property of well-formed sentences or propositions, but rather it is a much richer metaphysical concept. ‘The true’ or ‘truth’ in their fully developed form are reached only at the pinnacle of Hegel’s system – the Idea. The idea is the single principle of all reality. The Idea is what is true in and for itself, the absolute unity of Concept and objectivity. In Hegel’s emphatic conception the idea and truth are ontological categories, and the absolute unity ‘of the Concept and objectivity’ of which he speaks, is different from the contingent correspondence of concept and object, word and thing. Hegel allows that in common parlance truth can mean ‘mere correctness’  or the correspondence of external things with my ideas of them” but this is a derivative of the emphatic conception. For Hegel, then, something is true to the extent that it is an adequate instantiation of its concept.{{Fact|date=October 2006}}
+
<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 honorable man.<ref>Immanuel Kant, (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 true cause or essence of the thing whose term 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>Kant, 1800/2005.</ref>
  
 
===Kierkegaard===
 
===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 math, 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>
+
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>Søren Kierkegaard. ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript.'' (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)</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>
+
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>Michael Watts. ''Kierkegaard.'' (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003)</ref>
  
 
===Nietzsche===
 
===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.
+
[[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: <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>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#2</ref></blockquote>
+
Robert Wicks discusses Nietzsche's basic view of truth as follows: <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>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#2 Friedrich Nietzsche], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref></blockquote>
  
 
===Heidegger===
 
===Heidegger===
[[Image:Van-gogh-shoes.jpg|thumb|400px|A Painting that reveals (''alethe'') a whole world. Heidegger mentions this particular work of Van Gogh's in "[[The Origin of the Work of Art]]."]]
+
Heidegger's concept of truth is complex. He defined truth as "dis-closedness" or "un-concealment" by applying a Greek term, "Aletheia" (ἀ–λήθεια). In [[Classical Greek]], "Lethe" (λήθη; lêthê) literally means "forgetfulness" or "concealment." It is related to the Greek word for "truth": ''a-lethe-ia'' (αλήθεια), meaning "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment." In Heidegger's [[ontology]], Dasein (human being) is the locus where truth becomes evident. Although human being has an implicit understanding of truth, truth is usually concealed or forgotten because human being exists in "inauthentic" mode. Only when human being restored its "authentic" mode of existence, human being becomes a being where truth is manifested.
'''Aletheia''' is the [[Greek (language)|Greek]] word for truth, and implies sincerity, actuality, and reality.  It is a significant concept in the study of [[philosophy]] and [[epistemology]] because defining truth as "aletheia," instead of as correspondence or coherence, represents a clear departure from nearly every philosophical tradition since the [[Ancient philosophy|Ancient]] period.
 
  
In the early to mid 20th-century, [[Martin Heidegger]] resurrected '''{{polytonic|ἀ–λήθεια}}''' and developed the notion into the form recognized today; a renewed attempt to understand [[Truth]]. Heidegger gave an [[etymology|etymological]] analysis of the term, and drew out an understanding of a-letheia as 'disclosedness'; [[cf.]] [[lethe]] as forgetfulness.
+
From Heidegger's perspective, man's openness to the world is the fundamental condition that allows man to encounter things in the world. Theoretical knowledge and truth, including the correspondence of knowledge and reality, become possible due to man's ontological openness to truth. Heidegger tried to conceptualize the process of disclosure of truth by tying it to man's modes, authentic or inauthentic, of being. Heidegger took "listening to the voice of [[conscience]]" and encounter with one's death (non-being) as two primary ways to restore one's authentic mode of existence.
  
Thus, aletheia is distinct from the more well-known conceptions of truth as [[proposition|statements]] which accurately describe a state of affairs ([[Correspondence theory of truth|correspondence]]), or statements which fit properly into a system taken as a whole ([[Coherence theory of truth|coherence]]).  Instead, Heidegger focused on the elucidation of a meaning of truth that is [[pre-Socratic]].
+
===Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi===
 
+
[[Gandhi]] dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or ''[[Satya]].'' He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his [[autobiography]] ''The Story of My Experiments with Truth.'' Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own [[demon]]s, [[fear]]s, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first when he said "God is Truth." He would later change this statement to "Truth is God." Thus, Truth in Gandhi's philosophy is [[God]].
Chiefly, then, aletheia is the truth that first appears when something is seen or revealed.  It is to take out of hiddenness to uncover.  It is not something that is connected with that which appears.  Allowing something to appear is then the first act of truth; for example, one must give attention to something before it can be a candidate for any further understanding, for any understanding of [[space]] it must first somehow appear.  Untruth, then, is something concealed or disguised.
 
 
 
Heidegger began his discourse on the reappropriation of aletheia in his magnum opus, ''[[Being and Time]]'', and expanded on the concept in his ''Introduction to Metaphysics''.  For more on his understanding of truth, see ''Poetry, Language, and Thought'', in particular the essay entitled "[[The Origin of the Work of Art]]," which describes the value of the work of art as a means to open a clearing, or a truth set to the work.<ref>Heidegger, M.  "Being and Time". Translated by Joan Stambaugh, Albany, State University of New York Press, 1996. (1927)</ref>
 
 
 
===Mahatma Gandhi===
 
Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first when he said "God is Truth." He would later change this statement to "Truth is God." Thus, Satya (Truth) in Gandhi's philosophy is "God"
 
  
 
===Alfred North Whitehead===
 
===Alfred North Whitehead===
Line 287: Line 169:
  
 
===Nishida===
 
===Nishida===
According to [[Kitaro Nishida]], "[k]nowledge 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>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Nishida Kitaro" at [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro]</ref>
+
According to [[Kitaro Nishida]], "[k]nowledge 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>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Nishida Kitaro" at [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro Nishida Kitaro], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>
  
 
===Fromm===
 
===Fromm===
[[Erich Fromm]] finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal truth".{{Fact|date=October 2006}} 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".{{Fact|date=October 2006}} The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment.{{Fact|date=October 2006}} 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.
+
[[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".{{Fact|date=October 2006}}
+
: 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." {{Fact|date=October 2006}}
+
: 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.{{Fact|date=October 2006}}
+
: 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===
 
===Foucault===
[[Image:Michel-foucault.jpg|thumb|160px|right|Michel Foucault (1926 – 1984)]]
+
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>M. Foucault.''"The Order of Things.'' (London: Vintage Books, (1966) 1970). </ref>
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===
 
===Baudrillard===
[[Jean Baudrillard]] considers truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He takes his cue from [[iconoclast]]s who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated the fact that God did not exist.<ref>Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994.</ref> Baudrillard writes in "Precession of the Simulacra":
+
[[Jean Baudrillard]] considers truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He takes his cue from [[iconoclast]]s who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated the fact that God did not exist.<ref>Jean Baudrillard. ''Simulacra and Simulation,'' translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. ISBN 0472065211) </ref> Baudrillard writes 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.
+
::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: "Simulacra and Simulations," in ''Selected Writings'' ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988) 166 ''ff''[http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html]</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., "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations" International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, Volume 2, Number 1 (January 2005) [http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/smith.htm#_edn4]</ref>
+
::—Ecclesiastes<ref>Jean Baudrillard, [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html "Simulacra and Simulations,"] in ''Selected Writings,'' ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988), 166 ''ff.'' Retrieved November 3, 2007.</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 Richard G. Smith, [http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/smith.htm#_edn4 "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations"] ''International Journal of Baudrillard Studies'' 2 (1) (January 2005). Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>
 
 
Some example simulacra that Baudrillard cites are: 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 philosophy. For a less extreme example consider how movies, almost without exception, end with the bad guy being punished, thus drilling into the viewers that successful businessmen and politicians are good or, if not, will be caught.<ref>Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994.</ref>
 
 
 
==Types of truth==
 
 
 
[[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 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.
 
 
 
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 a moral statement can be true in one time and place but false in another. This is different from the uncontroversial claim that people in different cultures and eras ''believe'' different things about morality: moral relativism is claiming that the moral facts themselves are different.
 
 
 
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.
 
 
 
[[Absolute truth|Absolutism]] in a particular domain of thought is the view that all statements in that domain are either true in all times and places or false in all times and places: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras.
 
  
==Religious perspectives on truth==
+
Some example simulacra that Baudrillard cites are: that prisons simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (e.g., [[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 philosophy. For a less extreme example consider how movies, almost without exception, end with the bad guy being punished, thus drilling into the viewers that successful businessmen and politicians are good or, if not, will be caught.<ref>Baudrillard, 1994.</ref>
  
Most religious traditions hold a body of truths that are part of the particular tradition.  Such truths may be considered to be [[spirit]]ually 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.
+
==Truth in religion==
 +
In religious contexts, truth has often such attributes as [[eternity]], immutability, and [[transcendence]], and attributed to [[God]] or some divine existence. Furthermore, truth is often not simply a conceptual knowledge but existential matter. In other words, man comes to understand or become aware of truth only through religious practices or process of embodiment. [[Jesus]]' words "I am the truth," for example, implies that he is the embodiment of truth. In [[Zen]] [[Buddhism]], truth become available not through conceptual understanding but through the experience of "enlightenment." It is the body-mind experience which involves existential turn of one's life.
  
 
===Buddhism===
 
===Buddhism===
Line 327: Line 197:
 
{{main|The Four Noble Truths}}
 
{{main|The Four Noble Truths}}
  
The Four Noble Truths are the most fundamental [[Buddhist]] teachings and appear countless times throughout the most ancient Buddhist texts, the [[Pali Canon]]. They arose from [[Buddha]]'s [[bodhi|enlightenment]], and are regarded in Buddhism as deep spiritual insight, ''not as philosophical theory'', with Buddha noting in the [[Samyutta Nikaya]]: "These Four Noble Truths, monks, are actual, unnering, not otherwise. Therefore they are called noble truths."<ref name = "noble1"> ''The Collected Discourses of the Buddha: A new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya'', Bhikkhu Bodhi, 2000</ref>
+
The Four Noble Truths are the most fundamental [[Buddhist]] teachings and appear countless times throughout the most ancient Buddhist texts, the [[Pali Canon]]. They arose from [[Buddha]]'s [[bodhi|enlightenment]], and are regarded in Buddhism as deep spiritual insight, ''not as philosophical theory,'' with Buddha noting in the [[Samyutta Nikaya]]: "These Four Noble Truths, monks, are actual, unerring, not otherwise. Therefore they are called noble truths."<ref name = "noble1">Bhikkhu Bodhi. ''The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya.'' (Wisdom Publications, 2000. ISBN 0861713311)</ref>
  
The Four Noble Truths (''Catvāry Āryasatyāni'') are as follows:  
+
The Four Noble Truths ''(Catvāry Āryasatyāni)'' are as follows:  
  
*The truth of [[suffering]]. Suffering applies to the following: Birth, aging, illness, death; union with what is displeasing; separation from what is pleasing; and to not get what one wants.
+
*The truth of [[suffering]]. Suffering applies to the following: Birth, aging, illness, death; union with what is displeasing; separation from what is pleasing; and to not get what one wants.
 
*The truth that suffering originates within us from the craving for pleasure and for being or nonbeing.  
 
*The truth that suffering originates within us from the craving for pleasure and for being or nonbeing.  
*The truth that this craving can be eliminated (''[[Nirvana]]'').<ref name = "noble2"> "The Nobility of the Truths," Bhikkhu Bodhi, 1992, [http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/nobility_of_truths.asp]</ref>
+
*The truth that this craving can be eliminated ''([[Nirvana]]).''<ref name = "noble2"> Bhikkhu Bodhi, [http://www.hinduwebsite.com/buddhism/essays/nobility_of_truths.asp "The Nobility of the Truths"], 1992. ''hinduwebsite.com''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>
 
*The truth that this elimination is the result of a methodical way or path that must be followed, which is known as the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].<ref name = "noble1" />
 
*The truth that this elimination is the result of a methodical way or path that must be followed, which is known as the [[Noble Eightfold Path]].<ref name = "noble1" />
  
 
===Judaism===
 
===Judaism===
There is no unilateral agreement amongst the different denominations of Judaism concerning truth. In [[Orthodox Judaism]], truth is the revealed word of God, as found in the [[Old Testament]], and to a lesser extent, in the words of the sages of the [[Talmud]]. For [[Hasidic]] Jews (an Orthodox sect), truth is also found in the pronouncements of their [[rebbe]], or spiritual leader, who is believed to possess divine inspiration.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebbe#Relationship_of_chasidim_to_their_rebbe</ref>
+
There is no unilateral agreement amongst the different denominations of Judaism concerning truth. In [[Orthodox Judaism]], truth is the revealed word of God, as found in the [[Old Testament]], and to a lesser extent, in the words of the sages of the [[Talmud]]. For [[Hasidic]] Jews (an Orthodox sect), truth is also found in the pronouncements of their [[rebbe]], or spiritual leader, who is believed to possess divine inspiration.<ref>See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebbe#Relationship_of_chasidim_to_their_rebbe Rebbe]. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>.Kotzk, a Polish Hasidic sect, was known for their obsession with truth.
  
 
In [[Conservative Judaism]], truth is not defined as literally as it is amongst the Orthodox. While Conservative Judaism acknowledges the truth of the Old Testament, generally, it does not accord that status to every single statement or word contained therein, as do the Orthodox. Moreover, unlike Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism believes that the nature of truth can vary from generation to generation, depending on circumstances. For instance, with respect to [[halakhah]], or Jewish law (which loosely-speaking can be described as the will of God as expressed in day-to-day activity), Conservative Judaism believes that it can be modified or adapted depending on the needs of the people. In Orthodox Judaism, by contrast, the halakhah is fixed (by the sages of the Talmud and later authorities); the present-day task, therefore, is to interpret the halakhah, but not to change it.
 
In [[Conservative Judaism]], truth is not defined as literally as it is amongst the Orthodox. While Conservative Judaism acknowledges the truth of the Old Testament, generally, it does not accord that status to every single statement or word contained therein, as do the Orthodox. Moreover, unlike Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism believes that the nature of truth can vary from generation to generation, depending on circumstances. For instance, with respect to [[halakhah]], or Jewish law (which loosely-speaking can be described as the will of God as expressed in day-to-day activity), Conservative Judaism believes that it can be modified or adapted depending on the needs of the people. In Orthodox Judaism, by contrast, the halakhah is fixed (by the sages of the Talmud and later authorities); the present-day task, therefore, is to interpret the halakhah, but not to change it.
  
[[Reform Judaism]] takes a much more liberal approach to truth. For starters, it does not hold that truth is only found in the Old Testament; rather, there are kernels of truth to be found in practically every religious tradition. Moreover, its attitude towards the Old Testament is, at best, a document parts of which may have been inspired, but with no particular monopoly on truth, or in any way legally binding.
+
[[Reform Judaism]] takes a much more liberal approach to truth. It does not hold that truth is only found in the Old Testament; rather, there are kernels of truth to be found in practically every religious tradition. Moreover, its attitude towards the Old Testament is, at best, a document parts of which may have been inspired, but with no particular monopoly on truth, or in any way legally binding.
  
 
===Christianity===
 
===Christianity===
 
[[Image:What is.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikolai Ge]]'s ''What is Truth?'', depicting the [[New Testament]] account of the question as posed by [[Pilate]] to [[Jesus]].]]
 
[[Image:What is.jpg|thumb|200px|[[Nikolai Ge]]'s ''What is Truth?'', depicting the [[New Testament]] account of the question as posed by [[Pilate]] to [[Jesus]].]]
Assertions of truth based upon [[history]], [[revelation]] and [[testimony]] set forward in the [[Bible]] are central to [[Christian]] beliefs. Some [[religious denomination|denomination]]s have asserted additional authorities as sources of doctrinal truth &mdash; for instance, in [[Roman Catholic Church|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> The central person in Christianity, [[Jesus]], claimed to be "Truth" when he said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me."<ref>''See, e.g.'' [[Bible]]: John 14:6</ref> In [[Christian Science]], Truth is God.<ref>http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth</ref>
+
Assertions of truth based upon [[history]], [[revelation]] and [[testimony]] set forward in the [[Bible]] are central to [[Christian]] beliefs. Some [[religious denomination|denomination]]s have asserted additional authorities as sources of doctrinal truth &mdash; for instance, in [[Roman Catholic Church|Roman Catholicism]] the [[Pope]] is asserted to be [[infallible]] on matters of [[church]] doctrine.<ref>Richard F. Costigan. ''The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I.'' (Catholic University Press, 2005)</ref> The central person in [[Christianity]], [[Jesus]], claimed to be "Truth" when he said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me."<ref>[[Bible]]: John 14:6</ref> In [[Christian Science]], Truth is God.<ref>[http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth truth], ''Merriam-Webster Dictionary''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>
  
 
====Biblical inerrancy====
 
====Biblical inerrancy====
  
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 Testament|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>
+
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 Testament|New]]. Various interpretations have been applied, depending on the tradition.<ref>Norman L. Geisler. ''Inerrancy.'' (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. ISBN 0310392810)</ref><ref>Stephen T. Davis. ''The debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus infallibility.'' (Westminster Press, 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>Marcus J. Borg. ''Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally.'' (2002), 7-8.</ref>
  
 
====The Magisterium of the Church====
 
====The Magisterium of the Church====
The [[Roman Catholic]] Church holds that it has a continuous teaching authority, [[magisterium]], which preserves the definitive, i.e. the truthful, understanding of scripture. The notion of the Pope as "infallible" in matters of faith and morals is derived from this idea.
+
The [[Roman Catholic Church]] holds that it has a continuous teaching authority, [[magisterium]], which preserves the definitive, i.e.. the truthful, understanding of scripture. The notion of the [[Pope]] as "infallible" in matters of [[faith]] and morals is derived from this idea.
  
 
===="Double truth" theories====
 
===="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>
+
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>Etienne Gilson, "La doctrine de la double vérité," ''Études de philosophie médiévale.'' (1921), 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> [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/delmedigo/#4._Rationalism_and_the_so-called_“double_truth_theory” Elijah Delmedigo], ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved November 3, 2007.</ref>
 
 
===Hinduism===
 
Truthfulness is the ninth of the ten attributes of [[dharma]].  Generally, truthfulness relates to speech; i.e. only to speak what one has seen, heard or understood, however the essence of truthfulness is far deeper in [[Hinduism]]: it is defined as upholding the central concept of righteousness.<ref name="hindu1">Truth Alone Will Triumph, [http://www.akhand-jyoti.org/ArticlesMarApr03/Truth.html]</ref>
 
  
 
===Jainism===
 
===Jainism===
Although, historically, [[Jainism|Jain]] authors have adopted different views on truth, the most prevalent is the system of ''[[anekantavada]]'' or "not-one-sidedness." This idea of truth is rooted in the notion that there is one truth, but that only enlightened beings can perceive it in its entirety; unenlightened beings only perceive one side of the truth (''ekanta''). ''Anekantavada'' works around the limitations of a one-sided view of truth by proposing multiple vantage points (''[[naya]]s'') from which truth can be viewed (cf. ''[[nayavada]]''). Recognizing that there are multiple possible truths about any particular thing, even mutually exclusive truths, Jain philosophers developed a system for synthesizing these various claims, known as ''[[syadvada]]''. Within the system of ''syadvada'', each truth is qualified to its particular view-point; that is "in a certain way," one claim or another or both may be true.
+
Although, historically, [[Jainism|Jain]] authors have adopted different views on truth, the most prevalent is the system of ''[[anekantavada]]'' or "not-one-sidedness." This idea of truth is rooted in the notion that there is one truth, but that only enlightened beings can perceive it in its entirety; unenlightened beings only perceive one side of the truth ''(ekanta).'' ''Anekantavada'' works around the limitations of a one-sided view of truth by proposing multiple vantage points ''([[naya]]s)'' from which truth can be viewed (cf. ''[[nayavada]]''). Recognizing that there are multiple possible truths about any particular thing, even mutually exclusive truths, Jain philosophers developed a system for synthesizing these various claims, known as ''[[syadvada]].'' Within the system of ''syadvada,'' each truth is qualified to its particular view-point; that is "in a certain way," one claim or another or both may be true.
 
 
==Notes==
 
<div class="references-small">
 
<references />
 
</div>
 
 
 
==References==
 
 
 
* [[Aristotle]], "The Categories," [[Harold P. Cooke]] (trans.), pp. 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. 111–179 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'',  Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, UK, 1938.
 
 
 
* Aristotle, "[[Prior Analytics]]," [[Hugh Tredennick]] (trans.), pp. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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) [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. 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.
 
 
 
* 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. 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 Peirce (Bibliography)|Peirce, C.S., Bibliography]].
 
 
 
* [[Charles 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. 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. 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''.
 
 
 
* [[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. 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. 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.
 
 
 
* [[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.
+
==Mythology==
 
+
{{main|Mythology}}
* [[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.
+
A [[myth]] is a narrative that a particular [[culture]] believes to be both true and significant, typical involving the [[supernatural]] or aiming to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In the opinion of [[J. R. R. Tolkien]],  
 
+
:"Legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of truth that can only be received in this mode."<ref>J. R. R. Tolkien. ''The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien,'' no. 147. </ref>
* [[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.
 
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 526: Line 265:
 
* [[Tautology (logic)]]
 
* [[Tautology (logic)]]
 
* [[Tautology (rhetoric)]]
 
* [[Tautology (rhetoric)]]
* [[Truth theory]]
 
 
* [[Truthiness]]
 
* [[Truthiness]]
 
* [[Unity of the proposition]]
 
* [[Unity of the proposition]]
Line 543: Line 281:
 
* [[Truth function]]
 
* [[Truth function]]
 
* [[Truth table]]
 
* [[Truth table]]
 +
{{col-break}}
 +
* [[Criteria of truth]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
  
Line 591: Line 331:
 
* [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]
 
* [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]]
 
{{col-end}}
 
{{col-end}}
 +
==Notes==
 +
{{reflist|2}}
 +
 +
==References==
 +
 +
* Aristotle, "The Categories," Harold P. Cooke, trans., 1–109 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1.'' (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1938.
 +
* __________. "On Interpretation," Harold P. Cooke. trans., 111–179 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1.'' (Loeb Classical Library) London: William Heinemann, 1938.
 +
* __________. "Prior Analytics," Hugh Tredennick, trans., 181–531 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1.'' (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1938.
 +
* __________. "On the Soul" ''(De Anima),'' W. S. Hett, trans., 1–203 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;8.'' (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1936.
 +
* Audi, Robert. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Cambridge University Press, 1995. Cited as CDP. ISBN 0521402247.
 +
* Baldwin, James Mark, ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology.'' 3 volumes in 4, New York, NY: Macmillan, 1901-1905.
 +
* Baudrillard, Jean. ''Cool memories,'' traslated by Chris Turner. Verso Books, 1990.
 +
ISBN 086091500X. (also Vols. II, III, IV, V.)
 +
* __________. ''Simulacra and Simulation,'' translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. ISBN 0472065211.
 +
* Baylis, Charles A., "Truth," 321–322 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed. ''Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
 +
* Benjamin, A. Cornelius, "Coherence Theory of Truth," 58 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
 +
* Blackburn, Simon, and Keith Simmons. ''Truth.'' Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0198752504.
 +
* Bodhi, Bhikkhu. ''The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya.'' Wisdom Publications, 2000. ISBN 0861713311.
 +
* Chaitin, Gregory L. ''The Limits of Mathematics.'' (1997) Springer, 2002. ISBN 1852336684. 
 +
* Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan. ''Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and Motivations in Science.'' University of Chicago Press, 1987. ISBN 0226100863.
 +
* Chang, C.C., and H.J. Keisler, ''Model Theory.'' Amsterdam: 1973.
 +
* Chomsky, Noam. ''The Minimalist Program.'' Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. ISBN 0262032295.
 +
* Church, Alonzo, "Name Relation, or Meaning Relation," 204 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
 +
* __________. "Truth, Semantical," 322 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy.'' 1962.
 +
* Clifford, W. K. ''The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays.'' Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999. ISBN 1573926914. [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html]
 +
* Costigan, Richard F. ''The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I.'' Catholic University of America Press, 2005. ISBN 0813214130.
 +
* Davis, Stephen T. ''The debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus infallibility.'' (Westminster Press, 1977. ISBN 0664241190. 
 +
* Dewey, John. ''Lectures on Ethics 1900–1901,'' Donald F. Koch, ed. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1900-1901.
 +
* __________. ''Theory of the Moral Life,'' Part 2 of John Dewey and James H. Tufts. ''Ethics.'' (1908). 2nd edition, 1932. Reprinted, Arnold Isenberg, ed., Victor Kestenbaum (pref.), New York, NY: Irvingtion Publishers, 1980.
 +
* __________. ''Logic: The Theory of Inquiry,'' Reprinted, ''John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938'', Jo Ann Boydston, ed., Irvington, NY: 1982. ISBN 0891978313.
 +
* Field, Hartry. ''Truth and the Absence of Fact.'' Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0199242895.
 +
* Foucault, Michel. ''Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 1, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth,'' Paul Rabinow, ed., Robert Hurley, et al., trans. New York, NY: The New Press, 1997. ISBN 1565843525.
 +
* __________. ''Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences.'' London: Vintage Books, (1966). second ed., 2001. ISBN 0415267374.
 +
* Garfield, Jay L., and Murray Kiteley. ''Meaning and Truth: The Essential Readings in Modern Semantics.'' New York, NY: Paragon House, ISBN 1557783004.
 +
* Geisler, Norman L. ''Inerrancy.'' Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. ISBN 0310392810.
 +
* Gupta, Anil, "Truth," in Lou Goble, ed., ''The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic.'' Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0631206922.
 +
* Haack, Susan. ''Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology.'' Blackwell Publishers, 1993. ISBN 0631118519.
 +
* Habermas, Jürgen, "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. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1976. ISBN 3518061062.
 +
* _________. ''Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action,'' Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, trans., Thomas McCarthy, intro., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. ISBN 026208192X.
 +
* __________. ''Truth and Justification,'' Barbara Fultner, trans., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. ISBN 0262083183.
 +
* Horwich, Paul. ''Truth,'' 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 0198752245.
 +
* James, William. ''A World of Pure Experience.'' NY: s.n., 1904.
 +
* __________. ''Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy.'' New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1907.
 +
 +
* __________. ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism'.'' New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1909.
 +
* __________. ''Essays in Radical Empiricism.'' Chapt. 3, "The Thing and its Relations," pp. 92–122. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. ISBN 0674267176.
 +
* Kant, Immanuel. ''Introduction to Logic.'' Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, trans., Dennis Sweet, intro., New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2005.
 +
* Kirkham, Richard L., ''Theories of Truth.'' Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. ISBN 0262111675.
 +
* Kneale, W., and M. Kneale. ''The Development of Logic.'' Oxford University Press, (1962) Reprinted with corrections, 1975.
 +
* Kreitler, Hans, and Shulamith Kreitler. ''Psychology of the Arts.'' Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972.
 +
* Le Morvan, Pierre, "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey" in ''British Journal for the History of Philosophy'' 12 (4) (2004): 705–718.
 +
* Nietzsche, Friedrich. ''Beyond Good and Evil,'' (original 1886) translated by by Helen Zimmern. Digireads.com, 2005. ISBN 1420922505.
 +
* 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., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as CP vol.para.
 +
* __________. "The Fixation of Belief" in ''Popular Science Monthly'' 12 (1877): 1–15. Reprinted (CP 5.358–387), (CE 3, 242–257), (EP 1, 109–123).
 +
* __________. "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), 718–720 in J.M. Baldwin, ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 2.'' Reprinted, CP 5.565–573, 1901.
 +
* Polanyi, Michael. ''The Tacit Dimension.'' Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1966.
 +
* Quine, W. V., "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes," in ''Journal of Philosophy'' 53 (1956). Reprinted, in Quine, ''Ways of Paradox.'' (1976), 185–196.
 +
* __________. ''The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays.'' (1966) Revised and enlarged ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. ISBN 0674948351.
 +
* __________. ''From a Logical Point of View, Logico-Philosophical Essays,'' 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
 +
* __________. "Reference and Modality," 139–159 in Quine, ''From a Logical Point of View.'' Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961.
 +
* Rajchman, John, and Cornel West. ''Post-Analytic Philosophy.'' New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1985. ISBN 0231060661.
 +
* Ramsey, F.P., "Facts and Propositions" 153–170. in ''Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7,'' Reprinted, 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, ''Philosophical Papers,'' David Hugh Mellor, ed., Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN 0521374804.
 +
* __________. ''Philosophical Papers,'' David Hugh Mellor, ed., Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN 0521374804.
 +
* Rawls, John. ''Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy,'' Barbara Herman, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0674002962.
 +
* Rescher, Nicholas. ''Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus.'' New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0198236018.
 +
* Rorty, R., ''Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature.'' Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. ISBN 0691072361.
 +
* Russell, Bertrand. ''The Problems of Philosophy.'' (1st published 1912). Reprinted, 1959. Reprinted, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988.
 +
* __________. "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism" in ''The Monist'', 1918. Reprinted, 177–281 in ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950,'' Robert Charles Marsh, ed., London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1956. Reprinted, 35–155 in ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,'' David Pears, ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985. ISBN 0875484433.
 +
* __________. ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950,'' Robert Charles Marsh, ed., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1956. ISBN 0041640012.
 +
* __________. ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism,'' David Pears, ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985. ISBN 0875484433.
 +
* Smart, Ninian. ''The Religious Experience of Mankind.'' New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
 +
* Tarski, A., ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938,'' J.H. Woodger (trans.), Oxford University Press: 1956. 2nd edition, John Corcoran, ed., Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1983.
 +
* Wallace, Anthony F.C. ''Religion:  An Anthropological View.'' New York, NY: Random House, 1966.
 +
* Watts, Michael. ''Kierkegaard.'' Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2003. ISBN 1851683178.
 +
* Yandell, Benjamin H. ''The Honors Class: Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers.'' London: AK Peters, 2003. ISBN 1568812167.
 +
 +
'''Reference works'''
 +
 +
* Audi, Robert. ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Cambridge University Press, 1995. 2nd ed., 1999. Cited as CDP. ISBN 0521402247.
 +
* Blackburn, Simon. ''The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy.'' Oxford University Press, 1994. Cited as ODP. ISBN 0192116940.
 +
* Runes, Dagobert D., ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy.'' New York: Philosophical Library, 1983. ISBN 0802223885.
 +
* ''Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged.'', W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart, eds., Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, Cited as MWU, 1950.
 +
* ''Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary,'' Frederick C. Mish, ed., Springfield, MA: Merriam–Webster Inc., 1983. Cited as MWC. ISBN 0877795088.
  
 
==External links==
 
==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
+
All links retrieved May 2, 2023.
{{Wiktionarypar|truth}}
+
 
* [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://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/ Truth]
+
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ Correspondence theory of truth].
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ Coherence theory of truth]
+
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Deflationary theory of truth].
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ Correspondence theory of truth]
+
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Identity theory of truth].  
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Deflationary theory of truth]
+
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/ Tarski's Truth Definitions].
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Identity theory of truth]
+
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/ Axiomatic theories of truth].
**[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Revision theory 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]
 
  
 +
===General Philosophy Sources===
 +
*[http://plato.stanford.edu/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy].
 +
*[http://www.iep.utm.edu/ The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy].
 +
*[http://www.bu.edu/wcp/PaidArch.html Paideia Project Online].
 +
*[http://www.gutenberg.org/ Project Gutenberg].
 +
 +
[[category:Philosophy and religion]]
 
{{Philosophy navigation}}
 
{{Philosophy navigation}}
 
+
{{credits|Truth|168903955|Truth_(religious)|167143027|Lethe|167988930}}
[[Category:Core issues in ethics]]
 
[[Category:Epistemology]]
 
[[Category:Philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical terminology]]
 
[[Category:Philosophical concepts]]
 
[[Category:Political philosophy]]
 
 
 
{{credits|Truth|134910158|Correspondence_theory_of_truth|122451447|Coherence_theory_of_truth|117710407|Consensus_theory_of_truth|118425409|Pragmatic_theory_of_truth|112903970|Aletheia|135534984}}
 

Latest revision as of 23:40, 15 January 2024

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

The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. The term has no single definition that the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree on, as various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on questions regarding truth, such as what constitutes truth, 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 in philosophy.

In religious contexts, truth is often attributed to the divine origin and associated as being eternal, absolute, and immutable. Truth is also understood not only as a matter of conceptual understanding, but as an issue of embodiment, which involves an existential way of being, religious experience, or way of living. An example is in Jesus' words "I am the truth" that indicate an inseparable relationship between truth and human existence.

Etymology

English 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 derived from the Old English (West Saxon) word (ge)tríewe, tréowe, cognate to Old Saxon (gi)trûui, Old High German (ga)triuwu (Modern German treu "faithful"), Old Norse tryggr, Gothic triggws.[1], all from a Proto-Germanic *trewwj- "having good faith." Old Norse trú, means "faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"[2] (archaic English troth "loyalty, honesty, good faith," compare Ásatrú).

Thus, truth in its original sense is the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity",[3], and the narrowed sense "in agreement with fact or reality," in Anglo-Saxon expressed by sōþ, is a secondary development coupled to the process of "Enlightenment" in seventeenth century philosophy.[4]

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 continuing Latin veritas, while Greek with aletheia and Slavic with pravda have unrelated terms.

The major theories of truth

Questions about what is a proper basis on which to decide how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be said to constitute truth, whether for a single person or an entire community or society, are among the many questions addressed by the theories introduced below.

Each of the five substantive theories below deal with truth as something with a nature, a phenomenon, or thing, or type of human experience about which significant things can be said. These theories each present perspectives that are widely agreed by published scholars to apply in some way to a broad set of occurrences that can be observed in human interaction, or which offer significant, stable explanations for issues related to the idea of truth in human experience.[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

Correspondence theory

Correspondence theories claim that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.[9] This type of theory attempts to posit 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 objective reality, by whether it accurately describes that reality. For example, there is a true distance to the moon when we humans attempt to go there, and this true distance is necessary to know so that the journey can be successfully made.

Correspondence theory traditionally operates on the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying "objective reality" and then representing it in thoughts, words and other symbols.[11] More modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved independently of some analysis of additional factors. 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, the language itself adds 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.

Proponents of several of the theories below have gone farther 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

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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]

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.[15] They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of logical positivism, notably Otto Neurath and Carl Hempel.

Constructivist theory

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, Garns, and Marx were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is socially constructed.

Consensus theory

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, who maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an ideal speech situation.[16] Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher Nicholas Rescher.[17]

Pragmatic theory

The three most influential forms of the pragmatic theory of truth were introduced around the turn of the twentieth century by Charles S. 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.[18]

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."[19] 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."[20] 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.[21]

Minimalist (deflationary) theories

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 twentieth 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.[22][5]

Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "the 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.

But it can be expressed succinctly by saying: "Whatever Michael says is true."[23]

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. 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.'"[24]

Redundancy and related theories

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."[25][26]

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 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."

Formal theories

Truth in mathematics

There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the model theory of truth and the proof theory of truth.

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.[27] 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,[28] 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.[29] 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.[30] 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 as 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.[31]

Notable philosophers' views

La Vérité ("Truth") by Jules Joseph Lefebvre 1870. Oil on canvas

Classical philosophers

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”.[32] 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.[32]

Very similar statements can also be found in Plato (Cratylus 385b2, Sophist 263b).[32]

Aquinas

Thomas Aquinas said that veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei,[33] truth is the conformity of the intellect to the things, an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view.

Kant

Immanuel Kant discussed the correspondence theory of truth in the following manner. Kant's criticism of correspondence theory is one of numerous examples of why so many thinkers who examine the question of truth are not satisfied to rest with this first theory that usually comes to mind.

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 honorable man.[34]

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 thing whose term 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.[35]

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.[36]

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.[37]

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.[38]

Heidegger

Heidegger's concept of truth is complex. He defined truth as "dis-closedness" or "un-concealment" by applying a Greek term, "Aletheia" (ἀ–λήθεια). In Classical Greek, "Lethe" (λήθη; lêthê) literally means "forgetfulness" or "concealment." It is related to the Greek word for "truth": a-lethe-ia (αλήθεια), meaning "un-forgetfulness" or "un-concealment." In Heidegger's ontology, Dasein (human being) is the locus where truth becomes evident. Although human being has an implicit understanding of truth, truth is usually concealed or forgotten because human being exists in "inauthentic" mode. Only when human being restored its "authentic" mode of existence, human being becomes a being where truth is manifested.

From Heidegger's perspective, man's openness to the world is the fundamental condition that allows man to encounter things in the world. Theoretical knowledge and truth, including the correspondence of knowledge and reality, become possible due to man's ontological openness to truth. Heidegger tried to conceptualize the process of disclosure of truth by tying it to man's modes, authentic or inauthentic, of being. Heidegger took "listening to the voice of conscience" and encounter with one's death (non-being) as two primary ways to restore one's authentic mode of existence.

Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi

Gandhi dedicated his life to the wider purpose of discovering truth, or Satya. He tried to achieve this by learning from his own mistakes and conducting experiments on himself. He called his autobiography The Story of My Experiments with Truth. Gandhi stated that the most important battle to fight was overcoming his own demons, fears, and insecurities. Gandhi summarized his beliefs first when he said "God is Truth." He would later change this statement to "Truth is God." Thus, Truth in Gandhi's philosophy is God.

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 plays 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, "[k]nowledge 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."[39]

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.[40]

Baudrillard

Jean Baudrillard considers truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He takes his cue from iconoclasts who he claims knew that images of God demonstrated the fact that God did not exist.[41] Baudrillard writes 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[42][43]

Some example simulacra that Baudrillard cites are: that prisons simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (e.g., 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 philosophy. For a less extreme example consider how movies, almost without exception, end with the bad guy being punished, thus drilling into the viewers that successful businessmen and politicians are good or, if not, will be caught.[44]

Truth in religion

In religious contexts, truth has often such attributes as eternity, immutability, and transcendence, and attributed to God or some divine existence. Furthermore, truth is often not simply a conceptual knowledge but existential matter. In other words, man comes to understand or become aware of truth only through religious practices or process of embodiment. Jesus' words "I am the truth," for example, implies that he is the embodiment of truth. In Zen Buddhism, truth become available not through conceptual understanding but through the experience of "enlightenment." It is the body-mind experience which involves existential turn of one's life.

Buddhism

The Four Noble Truths

The Four Noble Truths are the most fundamental Buddhist teachings and appear countless times throughout the most ancient Buddhist texts, the Pali Canon. They arose from Buddha's enlightenment, and are regarded in Buddhism as deep spiritual insight, not as philosophical theory, with Buddha noting in the Samyutta Nikaya: "These Four Noble Truths, monks, are actual, unerring, not otherwise. Therefore they are called noble truths."[45]

The Four Noble Truths (Catvāry Āryasatyāni) are as follows:

  • The truth of suffering. Suffering applies to the following: Birth, aging, illness, death; union with what is displeasing; separation from what is pleasing; and to not get what one wants.
  • The truth that suffering originates within us from the craving for pleasure and for being or nonbeing.
  • The truth that this craving can be eliminated (Nirvana).[46]
  • The truth that this elimination is the result of a methodical way or path that must be followed, which is known as the Noble Eightfold Path.[45]

Judaism

There is no unilateral agreement amongst the different denominations of Judaism concerning truth. In Orthodox Judaism, truth is the revealed word of God, as found in the Old Testament, and to a lesser extent, in the words of the sages of the Talmud. For Hasidic Jews (an Orthodox sect), truth is also found in the pronouncements of their rebbe, or spiritual leader, who is believed to possess divine inspiration.[47].Kotzk, a Polish Hasidic sect, was known for their obsession with truth.

In Conservative Judaism, truth is not defined as literally as it is amongst the Orthodox. While Conservative Judaism acknowledges the truth of the Old Testament, generally, it does not accord that status to every single statement or word contained therein, as do the Orthodox. Moreover, unlike Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism believes that the nature of truth can vary from generation to generation, depending on circumstances. For instance, with respect to halakhah, or Jewish law (which loosely-speaking can be described as the will of God as expressed in day-to-day activity), Conservative Judaism believes that it can be modified or adapted depending on the needs of the people. In Orthodox Judaism, by contrast, the halakhah is fixed (by the sages of the Talmud and later authorities); the present-day task, therefore, is to interpret the halakhah, but not to change it.

Reform Judaism takes a much more liberal approach to truth. It does not hold that truth is only found in the Old Testament; rather, there are kernels of truth to be found in practically every religious tradition. Moreover, its attitude towards the Old Testament is, at best, a document parts of which may have been inspired, but with no particular monopoly on truth, or in any way legally binding.

Christianity

Nikolai Ge's What is Truth?, depicting the New Testament account of the question as posed by Pilate to Jesus.

Assertions of truth based upon history, revelation and testimony set forward in the Bible are central to Christian beliefs. Some denominations have asserted additional authorities as sources of doctrinal truth — for instance, in Roman Catholicism the Pope is asserted to be infallible on matters of church doctrine.[48] The central person in Christianity, Jesus, claimed to be "Truth" when he said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father but through me."[49] In Christian Science, Truth is God.[50]

Biblical inerrancy

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.[51][52] 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.[53]

The Magisterium of the Church

The Roman Catholic Church holds that it has a continuous teaching authority, magisterium, which preserves the definitive, i.e.. the truthful, understanding of scripture. The notion of the Pope as "infallible" in matters of faith and morals is derived from this idea.

"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.[54] 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.[55]

Jainism

Although, historically, Jain authors have adopted different views on truth, the most prevalent is the system of anekantavada or "not-one-sidedness." This idea of truth is rooted in the notion that there is one truth, but that only enlightened beings can perceive it in its entirety; unenlightened beings only perceive one side of the truth (ekanta). Anekantavada works around the limitations of a one-sided view of truth by proposing multiple vantage points (nayas) from which truth can be viewed (cf. nayavada). Recognizing that there are multiple possible truths about any particular thing, even mutually exclusive truths, Jain philosophers developed a system for synthesizing these various claims, known as syadvada. Within the system of syadvada, each truth is qualified to its particular view-point; that is "in a certain way," one claim or another or both may be true.

Mythology

Main article: Mythology

A myth is a narrative that a particular culture believes to be both true and significant, typical involving the supernatural or aiming to explain the nature of the universe and humanity. In the opinion of J. R. R. Tolkien,

"Legends and myths are largely made of 'truth', and indeed present aspects of truth that can only be received in this mode."[56]

See also

  • Religion
  • Slingshot argument
  • Statistical independence
  • Tautology (logic)
  • Tautology (rhetoric)
  • Truthiness
  • Unity of the proposition
  • Veritas

Truth in logic

  • Truth function
  • Truth table

  • Criteria of truth

Theories of truth

  • Coherentism
  • Coherence theory of truth
  • Consensus theory of truth
  • Correspondence theory of truth
  • Deflationary theory of truth

  • Epistemic theories of truth
  • Indefinability theory of truth
  • Pragmatic theory of truth
  • Redundancy theory of truth
  • Semantic theory of truth

Major theorists

Notes

  1. see Holtzmann's law for the -ww- : -gg- alternation.
  2. Zoega (1910) Zoëga's A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic, Northvegr Foundation. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  3. 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."
  4. Attested since the early seventeenth century, e.g., Shakespeare in As You Like It (5.4) has "If there be truth in sight, you are my daughter."; William Prynne in his A briefe survay and censure of Mr Cozens his couzening devotions (1628) has "I haue here sufficiently euidenced the trueth of this Assertion." Retrieved November 10, 2007.
  5. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 Michael Williams, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., "Truth," 572-573 (Macmillan, 1996)
  6. Simon Blackburn and Keith Simmons, (eds.), Truth. (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1999). Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.
  7. Paul Horwich. Truth, 2nd ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 0198752245),
  8. Hartry Field. Truth and the Absence of Fact. (2001).
  9. Arthur N. Prior, "Correspondence Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, (Macmillan, 1969), 223. 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. Retrieved November 10, 2007.
  10. Arthur N. Prior, "Correspondence Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, (Macmillan, 1969), 223-224.
  11. F. H. Bradley, "On Truth and Copying," in Blackburn, et al. (eds.), Truth, (1999), 31-45.
  12. Immanuel Kant, for instance, assembled a controversial but quite coherent system in the early nineteenth 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. Retrieved November 10, 2007.
  13. Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 130-131.
  14. Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, (New York: Macmillan, 1969), 131-133, see esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions."
  15. Alan R. White, "Coherence Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, 130.
  16. Jürgen Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests, English translation by Jeremy J. Shapiro, (Boston: Beacon Press, 1972. ISBN 0807015415), esp. PART III, 187 ff.
  17. Nicholas Rescher. Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. (Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0198236018).
  18. "Pragmatic Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.5, (Macmillan, 1969), 427.
  19. C.S. Peirce, (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), 718–720, in J. M. Baldwin, (ed.), Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573.
  20. William James. The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism'. (1909).
  21. Richard J. Bernstein, "Dewey, John," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.2, (Macmillan, 1969), 383.
  22. Blackburn and Simmons, 1999, in the Introductory section of the book.
  23. Kirkham, Theories of Truth. (MIT Press, 1992).
  24. Gertrude Ezorsky, "Performative Theory of Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Vol.6, (Macmillan, 1969), 88.
  25. Michael Williams, "Truth," Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Supp., (Macmillan, 1996), 572-573.
  26. F.P. Ramsey, (1927), "Facts and Propositions," Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–170. (Reprinted, in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 34–51.
  27. Gregory L. Chaitin. The Limits of Mathematics. (1997)(Springer, 2002. ISBN 1852336684), esp. 89 ff.
  28. M. Davis. "Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable." American Mathematical Monthly 80 (1973): 233-269,
  29. Benjamin H. Yandell. The Honors Class: Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers. (London: AK Peters, 2003. ISBN 1568812167).
  30. Gregory L. Chaitin. The Limits of Mathematics. (1997), 1-28, 89 ff.
  31. Saul Kripke, "Outline of a Theory of Truth," Journal of Philosophy 72 (1975): 690-716.
  32. 32.0 32.1 32.2 Marion David, (2005) "Correspondence Theory of Truth", Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  33. Summa I.16.1 Question 16. Truth, Catholic Encyclopedia. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  34. Immanuel Kant, (1800), Introduction to Logic. (Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, (trans.), Dennis Sweet, intro. 2005)
  35. Kant, 1800/2005.
  36. Søren Kierkegaard. Concluding Unscientific Postscript. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992)
  37. Michael Watts. Kierkegaard. (Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003)
  38. Friedrich Nietzsche, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  39. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Nishida Kitaro" at Nishida Kitaro, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  40. M. Foucault."The Order of Things. (London: Vintage Books, (1966) 1970).
  41. Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation, translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. ISBN 0472065211)
  42. Jean Baudrillard, "Simulacra and Simulations," in Selected Writings, ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988), 166 ff. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  43. 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 Richard G. Smith, "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations" International Journal of Baudrillard Studies 2 (1) (January 2005). Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  44. Baudrillard, 1994.
  45. 45.0 45.1 Bhikkhu Bodhi. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. (Wisdom Publications, 2000. ISBN 0861713311)
  46. Bhikkhu Bodhi, "The Nobility of the Truths", 1992. hinduwebsite.com. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  47. See Rebbe. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  48. Richard F. Costigan. The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I. (Catholic University Press, 2005)
  49. Bible: John 14:6
  50. truth, Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  51. Norman L. Geisler. Inerrancy. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. ISBN 0310392810)
  52. Stephen T. Davis. The debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus infallibility. (Westminster Press, 1977)
  53. Marcus J. Borg. Reading the Bible Again For the First Time: Taking the Bible Seriously But Not Literally. (2002), 7-8.
  54. Etienne Gilson, "La doctrine de la double vérité," Études de philosophie médiévale. (1921), 51-69; translated as, History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages (1955).
  55. Elijah Delmedigo, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved November 3, 2007.
  56. J. R. R. Tolkien. The Letters of J. R. R. Tolkien, no. 147.

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

  • Aristotle, "The Categories," Harold P. Cooke, trans., 1–109 in Aristotle, Volume 1. (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1938.
  • __________. "On Interpretation," Harold P. Cooke. trans., 111–179 in Aristotle, Volume 1. (Loeb Classical Library) London: William Heinemann, 1938.
  • __________. "Prior Analytics," Hugh Tredennick, trans., 181–531 in Aristotle, Volume 1. (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1938.
  • __________. "On the Soul" (De Anima), W. S. Hett, trans., 1–203 in Aristotle, Volume 8. (Loeb Classical Library), London: William Heinemann, 1936.
  • Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. Cited as CDP. ISBN 0521402247.
  • Baldwin, James Mark, Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology. 3 volumes in 4, New York, NY: Macmillan, 1901-1905.
  • Baudrillard, Jean. Cool memories, traslated by Chris Turner. Verso Books, 1990.

ISBN 086091500X. (also Vols. II, III, IV, V.)

  • __________. Simulacra and Simulation, translated by Sheila Faria Glaser. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994. ISBN 0472065211.
  • Baylis, Charles A., "Truth," 321–322 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed. Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
  • Benjamin, A. Cornelius, "Coherence Theory of Truth," 58 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
  • Blackburn, Simon, and Keith Simmons. Truth. Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0198752504.
  • Bodhi, Bhikkhu. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha: A new translation of the Samyutta Nikaya. Wisdom Publications, 2000. ISBN 0861713311.
  • Chaitin, Gregory L. The Limits of Mathematics. (1997) Springer, 2002. ISBN 1852336684.
  • Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan. Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and Motivations in Science. University of Chicago Press, 1987. ISBN 0226100863.
  • Chang, C.C., and H.J. Keisler, Model Theory. Amsterdam: 1973.
  • Chomsky, Noam. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995. ISBN 0262032295.
  • Church, Alonzo, "Name Relation, or Meaning Relation," 204 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams, and Company, 1962.
  • __________. "Truth, Semantical," 322 in Dagobert D. Runes, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy. 1962.
  • Clifford, W. K. The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1999. ISBN 1573926914. [1]
  • Costigan, Richard F. The Consensus Of The Church And Papal Infallibility: A Study In The Background Of Vatican I. Catholic University of America Press, 2005. ISBN 0813214130.
  • Davis, Stephen T. The debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus infallibility. (Westminster Press, 1977. ISBN 0664241190.
  • Dewey, John. Lectures on Ethics 1900–1901, Donald F. Koch, ed. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1900-1901.
  • __________. Theory of the Moral Life, Part 2 of John Dewey and James H. Tufts. Ethics. (1908). 2nd edition, 1932. Reprinted, Arnold Isenberg, ed., Victor Kestenbaum (pref.), New York, NY: Irvingtion Publishers, 1980.
  • __________. Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Reprinted, John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938, Jo Ann Boydston, ed., Irvington, NY: 1982. ISBN 0891978313.
  • Field, Hartry. Truth and the Absence of Fact. Oxford University Press, 2001. ISBN 0199242895.
  • Foucault, Michel. Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 1, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth, Paul Rabinow, ed., Robert Hurley, et al., trans. New York, NY: The New Press, 1997. ISBN 1565843525.
  • __________. Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences. London: Vintage Books, (1966). second ed., 2001. ISBN 0415267374.
  • Garfield, Jay L., and Murray Kiteley. Meaning and Truth: The Essential Readings in Modern Semantics. New York, NY: Paragon House, ISBN 1557783004.
  • Geisler, Norman L. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980. ISBN 0310392810.
  • Gupta, Anil, "Truth," in Lou Goble, ed., The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 2001. ISBN 0631206922.
  • Haack, Susan. Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology. Blackwell Publishers, 1993. ISBN 0631118519.
  • Habermas, Jürgen, "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. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1976. ISBN 3518061062.
  • _________. Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen, trans., Thomas McCarthy, intro., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990. ISBN 026208192X.
  • __________. Truth and Justification, Barbara Fultner, trans., Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2003. ISBN 0262083183.
  • Horwich, Paul. Truth, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. ISBN 0198752245.
  • James, William. A World of Pure Experience. NY: s.n., 1904.
  • __________. Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1907.
  • __________. The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism'. New York, NY: Longmans, Green, and Company, 1909.
  • __________. Essays in Radical Empiricism. Chapt. 3, "The Thing and its Relations," pp. 92–122. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. ISBN 0674267176.
  • Kant, Immanuel. Introduction to Logic. Reprinted, Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, trans., Dennis Sweet, intro., New York, NY: Barnes and Noble, 2005.
  • Kirkham, Richard L., Theories of Truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992. ISBN 0262111675.
  • Kneale, W., and M. Kneale. The Development of Logic. Oxford University Press, (1962) Reprinted with corrections, 1975.
  • Kreitler, Hans, and Shulamith Kreitler. Psychology of the Arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972.
  • Le Morvan, Pierre, "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey" in British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12 (4) (2004): 705–718.
  • Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil, (original 1886) translated by by Helen Zimmern. Digireads.com, 2005. ISBN 1420922505.
  • 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., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as CP vol.para.
  • __________. "The Fixation of Belief" in Popular Science Monthly 12 (1877): 1–15. Reprinted (CP 5.358–387), (CE 3, 242–257), (EP 1, 109–123).
  • __________. "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), 718–720 in J.M. Baldwin, ed., Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573, 1901.
  • Polanyi, Michael. The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1966.
  • Quine, W. V., "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes," in Journal of Philosophy 53 (1956). Reprinted, in Quine, Ways of Paradox. (1976), 185–196.
  • __________. The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays. (1966) Revised and enlarged ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976. ISBN 0674948351.
  • __________. From a Logical Point of View, Logico-Philosophical Essays, 2nd ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
  • __________. "Reference and Modality," 139–159 in Quine, From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961.
  • Rajchman, John, and Cornel West. Post-Analytic Philosophy. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1985. ISBN 0231060661.
  • Ramsey, F.P., "Facts and Propositions" 153–170. in Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, Reprinted, 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor, ed., Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN 0521374804.
  • __________. Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor, ed., Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1990. ISBN 0521374804.
  • Rawls, John. Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy, Barbara Herman, ed., Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000. ISBN 0674002962.
  • Rescher, Nicholas. Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. ISBN 0198236018.
  • Rorty, R., Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979. ISBN 0691072361.
  • Russell, Bertrand. The Problems of Philosophy. (1st published 1912). Reprinted, 1959. Reprinted, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988.
  • __________. "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism" in The Monist, 1918. Reprinted, 177–281 in Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh, ed., London, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1956. Reprinted, 35–155 in The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears, ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985. ISBN 0875484433.
  • __________. Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950, Robert Charles Marsh, ed., New York, NY: Macmillan, 1956. ISBN 0041640012.
  • __________. The Philosophy of Logical Atomism, David Pears, ed., La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1985. ISBN 0875484433.
  • Smart, Ninian. The Religious Experience of Mankind. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
  • Tarski, A., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938, J.H. Woodger (trans.), Oxford University Press: 1956. 2nd edition, John Corcoran, ed., Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing, 1983.
  • Wallace, Anthony F.C. Religion: An Anthropological View. New York, NY: Random House, 1966.
  • Watts, Michael. Kierkegaard. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications, 2003. ISBN 1851683178.
  • Yandell, Benjamin H. The Honors Class: Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers. London: AK Peters, 2003. ISBN 1568812167.

Reference works

  • Audi, Robert. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 1995. 2nd ed., 1999. Cited as CDP. ISBN 0521402247.
  • Blackburn, Simon. The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy. Oxford University Press, 1994. Cited as ODP. ISBN 0192116940.
  • Runes, Dagobert D., ed., Dictionary of Philosophy. New York: Philosophical Library, 1983. ISBN 0802223885.
  • Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged., W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart, eds., Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam Company, Cited as MWU, 1950.
  • Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Frederick C. Mish, ed., Springfield, MA: Merriam–Webster Inc., 1983. Cited as MWC. ISBN 0877795088.

External links

All links retrieved May 2, 2023.

General Philosophy Sources

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.