Talk:Truth/Archive 2

message: When I came to this page I wanted to know what is truth. What did I get? The page asked me what is truth. This is useless. I answered the question so that other users wont be similarly frustrated. Bensaccount 13:39, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: First impression

message: Just because something assumes there is reality is no reason why it should not be defined. Bensaccount 17:36, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Assuming there is reality

message: :Correspondence is a word for comparing two things that each can vary. When they vary in the same way then they correspond.
:Written language corresponds with reality. When reality varies, written language can vary in the same way or in a different way. When it varies in the same way, there is correspondence between it and reality.
:Your reference doesnt mention correspondence it only does the "first assumption". Bensaccount 23:14, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: You still havent said what the second assumption is. Bensaccount 23:16, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Correspondence

message: Don?t like these new edits, Ben. The structure is gone. Conflating the theories just makes the article unclear. Banno 00:02, Apr 18, 2004 (UTC)
:So fix the structure and clarify it. (dont just say its unclear say how its unclear) Bensaccount 00:05, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of takes the fun out of philosophy when everything fits together so well doesnt it. Bensaccount 00:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You choose to confound rather than conflate. If you realize that your explanations are based on confounding people so they cant argue, you should go back to talk:truth/insults? Bensaccount 03:18, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflation

message: Since the consensus appears to be that there is to be no defn of truth in the first sentence of the article, as is the norm, I suggest that we place the disambiguation message at the top. Althought this is not normal practice, doing so  explains why there is no defn. It also gives the article a better structure. Banno 20:27, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Banno to English translation: There is no definition for truth so we should place the disambiguation message at the top.
:That's not what I said. I said: 'there is to be no defn of truth in the first sentence of the article'. That is not the same thing. Banno 21:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)
Better B2E translation: Since the definition isn't at the start of the article we should place the disambiguation message at the top.
No we shouldn't invent a new form we should modify the article to follow the existing form (put the definition at the top). Bensaccount 21:22, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I second a disambiguation message, though I prefer it to be a disambiguation page. --Wikiwikifast 01:35, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: disambiguation

message: #Truth has many meanings.
#Listing one is better than listing none.
#Truth is correlation with reality. Bensaccount 15:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Listing none is better than listing one. But listing some is better than listing none. :) --Wikiwikifast 20:04, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Truth is how things are. This definition derives from Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, aphorism 137. He defines a proposition as something that one can place the words ??is true? after. He then equates this with placing the words ?This is how things are:? before the same proposition.   I think it is about as neutral with regard to the various epistemological theories as we are ever likely to get. If a definition must be given, in order to satisfy Ben, then let?s use this. Banno 20:58, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
That is not as good as having all the definitions given and put into their correct contexts, but it is a start. Bensaccount 22:12, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence. Wikiwikifast 18:21, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: But you can't possibly understand if you don't start with a good definition.  Also, just having one definition is misleading - there is no one approach to truth, nor one agreed-upon definition.  Even such a basic statement as "truth is that which is factual" is contested.  -Seth Mahoney 19:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Actually, one definition - saying this is what truth is - is more misleading than saying "we don't have a definition of truth that is entirely satisfactory to everyone".  Besides, what one definition might you be suggesting?  Also, if you have many reasons, go ahead and share them.  -Seth Mahoney 21:46, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Ben, I would say that noting "no definition of truth is entirely satisfactory to everyone" indicates that truth is a word about which people disagree concerning meaning.  Which is true.  Saying that "truth is X" where X is any definition of truth indicates that there is general agreement about the meaning of truth.  Which is false.  So in the interests of the truth, something needs to be said that makes it clear that there is no one definition of truth that is mutually acceptable to experts in this field.  That's my truth. ;-) Jwrosenzweig 22:52, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Are you contending that all the proposed meanings for the word "truth" are not contradictory, but are in fact congruent?  That's my understanding of your comment. Jwrosenzweig 23:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining truth

message: There is an unhealthy obsession with definitions revealing it self here. The statement: you can't possibly understand if you don't start with a good definition is simply false. A child understands and uses Mum, Dad and so on, yet certainly could not provide a good definition. Banno 21:58, Apr 21, 2004 (UTC)
:True.  -Seth Mahoney 22:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, the child could give a definition just not a very good one. Secondly, the understanding of a child is not what we are looking for in an encyclopdia. Bensaccount 22:17, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Exactly. The later Wittgenstein of the Philosophical Investigations warned against definitions, and argued our obsession with definitions obscures the true meaning of a word. Moreover, in my opinion, you cannot define truth because human language is based the assumption that there is (objective) truth. We all know what truth means, but we cannot define it in terms of other words in our language. We can say what is true and what is not true, but that is all. The meaning of truth is in its use. ;) Trying to say something about the ontological status of truth is fruitless, if we try to say it with human language. That is my (very Wittgensteinian) assessment of the issue. --Wikiwikifast 23:24, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The apple is red. This assumes that there are objects, that there is an object that we all (consensually) call an 'apple', and that 'red' is a property of the apple that is objectively true (or we all agree on what is 'red'). If we don't make any of these assumptions, we must be silent. --Wikiwikifast 00:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Lying is possible only if truth exists. --Wikiwikifast 01:03, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: The point of this argument—my whole thesis—is that truth cannot be properly defined. The name of the subheading is "Argument against definition"! --Wikiwikifast 01:39, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: You do not have to define a word to use it (or understand it). Yes, this is going in circles... My statement is not self-defeating; it just cannot be argued (because deductive argumentation/deductive logic builds on concepts such as truth and falsity). I will just state (again) that a disambiguation page would be better. What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. --Wikiwikifast 04:46, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Argument against definition

message: In Quatzequatl's name, hasn't anyone here ever heard of circular definitions!?
Saying that reality is how things are tell me nothing about reality unless I am an ESL student who has never encountered the word 'reality' before.  The Wikipedia is not a dictionary, remember?
The problem is that there is no agreement on "how things are"?  You might argue that some of the views of "how things are" are obviously wrong, but you should not do it here.  From the Wikipedia perspective, that is entirely irrelevant.
Are there "moral facts"?   Can we know anything about the noumena?  There are multiple positions on these topics (and many other topics).
Going back to "the truth".  It is trivially obvious that there is no agreement on the definition.  Whether you ask ordinary people or philosophers, you will get many different answers to "What is truth?"  So, for Wikipedia purposes, there is obviously no single definition of truth.  At best, there is a set of connotations that these definitions have in common.
Keep in mind that the Wikipedia is concerned not with "the truth" but with summarizing human knowledge.   Even if you somehow managed to get apodeictical knowledge of "the truth", and further have managed to acquire certainty about the apodeictical nature of your knowlege, it would not be appropriate to put your views of truth in a place of particular prominence in the Wikipedia - unless you managed to convince a substantial portion of the population about your views.  - Michael Voytinsky 14:11, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized that you (Michael Voytinsky) are arguing against a definition of truth, in which case I agree. --Wikiwikifast 16:13, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: Which redirects to 'truth'. --Wikiwikifast 16:15, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Please Kill Me Now!