Should we, human-beings, try to define truth (given truth exists in reality)? Personally, I don't think we should reduce truth to symbols and syllables because I think it will take us into weird semantical/tautological territory where 2+2=5 and water isn't wet ;). I take Frank Ramsey's brilliant inquiry, "What we can't say we cant't say, and we can't whistle it either." Hope everyone is staying safe - cheers!

  • When a logician defines what's true, I believe that she is really saying 'we will take these statements as in the category called "True" /for this purpose/', i.e., she is creating a mathematical tool. It is only "defining truth" in the sense of "giving a definition for the word 'True' in this specific context, for some practical purpose". Not attempting to define the general concept of 'truth' as you and I might use the word in conversation. So she isn't reducing truth to symbols, she's using the word 'True' as an analogy to describe a rules within a made up system of symbols. – Bug Catcher Nakata Nov 25 '20 at 4:36
  • We already do so. Since we born, until our last day, we keep "trying to define" each one's truths. Because a) there are no universal truths (poison=good is true for survivors, false for suicidals) and b) we can't know a lot of things (how many civilizations are there in the universe right now?). – RodolfoAP Nov 25 '20 at 4:36
  • Bug Catcher Nakata - thank you for your comment. As far as the logician 'using the word 'True' as an analogy to describe a rules within a made up system of symbols.', we must ask ourselves if the truth she is defining is the purest form of truth, i.e. the truth we, i think, can't obtain, or a trivial truth that one can find in mathematics or religion (if you're a believer). My point is that truth in its purest form cannot be reduced to mathematical theorems or the sort, otherwise it wouldn't be the purest truth. I should have mentioned 'purest truth' in my question - sorry about that. – Rino Cattabiani Nov 25 '20 at 5:19
  • 2
    Does this answer your question? Is there a single definition of truth? – Conifold Nov 25 '20 at 6:09
  • Conifold - No, because the question you tagged is asking, 'is' there a concrete definition of truth; however, I am asking 'should we' reduce truth to a definition, regardless of whether truth exists. thanks for your comment, hope all is well. – Rino Cattabiani Nov 25 '20 at 20:40

If we can define truth we know we can know what can be known, this is what is true. Is a handy thing, knowing things. If you know, or seem to know how to do things, you have something others don't, in a general level. Unless we keep changing the definition, wich makes definitions untrustworthy so as bearers of truth. But if you say "pure truth" you can't hold that the truth changes, and that it can be found within complex entities, unless pure truth is a constituent of entities. What is truth or pure truth? That doesn't matter directly with your question, it is a given, it is. And we are too, and things we know are and the things that the things we know know also know other things. Those are things that are, given that the things we know can know other things. It seems to me that there are different acesses to reality, but it, truth or reality, constituts itself the things that are, and so, should humans strive to know what makes things be, or they're groundings? I say that we should strive to know it, because it makes one at ease amdist the things, and things having told us they're 'secret names' may cause us to act knowingly that we act rightly, we do right to the things, so to speak.

What if the truth makes us to act terribly, according to other lenses than that of those that acess or recognise the simpleness of being (truth)? Who is right? The human world is full of lies they nourish us, asking what is truth is a necessity.

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.