2

An 'archaic' definition for TRUE,TRUTH implies constancy, reliability, unchanging, fidelity.

Using this concept of TRUTH is the following valid?

  • There exists either that which is TRUE or that which is not TRUE.
  • It cannot be TRUE that only non-TRUE things exist.
  • Therefore TRUTH exists.
  • I'm not sure I understand your definition of "truth." Can you cite a source? – James Kingsbery Nov 18 '15 at 20:05
  • @James - I'm having a little trouble finding a source that matches the concept. If I said ever reliable, never changing would that provide a better connection to the concept? Very similar to a constant in programming in the sense that it can be relied on 'not to have changed'. – washicd Nov 18 '15 at 22:21
0

There exists either that which is TRUE or that which is not TRUE. It cannot be TRUE that only non-TRUE things exist. Therefore TRUTH exists.

I say the conclusion is valid. Here is how I would reason it through.

  1. Either T or not-T.

  2. “All things are not-T” is false. Thus, by implication, its contradictory statement is true: “Some things are not not-T”.

  3. Thus T. There must be at least one true thing if the second premise is false. Everything need not be true, but at least one thing must be.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.