(April 30, 2014 at 1:16 am)JuliaL Wrote: I wish to start a discussion about the existence of truth or the true.
I've found several definitions, none of which I prefer.
.
.
My beef with each of these definitions is that they presume that there exists and we have access to the current state of reality.
I contend there are at least three observations which deny us direct access:
.
.
As a result, I would like to propose an alternative definition for the community to critique.
Truth is a property of propositions whose magnitude varies in direct proportion with how well the propositions serve to accurately have predicted the future once it arrives.
An unfortunate corollary of this definition is that nothing is currently true. It can only have been proved to be true at some future time.
I don't see any reason to change the definition of truth. Truth is potentially a property of any coherent statement.
Nor do I think we should hold the concept in such high regard. Truth is a bi-product of language. That's all. There is no The Truth. Of course there is the way things actually stand -and yes I accept that there is a reality independent of what we say about it. But truth is as much about the language as it is about reality. It is an approximation of reality at best.
Language is a little like the matrix. Don't settle for the word. Our entire being is interacting with reality all the time and is an integral part of it all. Language is representational. It provides a means of communicating with others about the world so that we can act collaboratively. Of course language will fall short. It certainly can't exceed the thing itself.
