How Exactly Do You Define Truth? - Philosophy Stack Exchange In summary truth emerges only after more thorough philosophy is gained, from East to West everyone has their own intuitive idiosyncratic notion of truth, thus its nature is highly dependent on ones' entire metaphysical or epistemic system
Can truth exist without language? - Philosophy Stack Exchange 5 "Whether truth can exist without language" and "that truth is an objective reality that exists independently of us" are not opposed claims, although they don't imply one another A Platonist would tell you that language, like other mental objects, exists in the ideal realm whether people are around to think about it or not
logic - What is the difference between Fact and Truth? - Philosophy . . . Truth is what the singer gives to the listener when she’s brave enough to open up and sing from her heart But still curious about the difference between both of them In our daily life, in general conversation, we generally use these both terms interchangeably Then what is the difference? Are they synonym or have specific difference?
truth - Is perspectivism a subtype of relativism? - Philosophy Stack . . . Relativism is the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute Perspectivism is the theory that knowledge of a subject is inevitably partial and limited by the individual perspective from which it is viewed
How can we attain ‘truth’ if all we can do is justification? OP: " How can we attain ‘truth’ if all we can do is justification? " This comes down to the idea that there are historically two forms of truth: the truth of the pre-Socratics and that of the Platonists For the pre-Socratics the truth is what is, as presented, whereas for the Platonists truth means the correspondence of the presented form with its idea — or in the OP's terms its
logic - The absolute truth paradox - Philosophy Stack Exchange "There is no absolute truth because we as humans are restrained from ever knowing it" is fallacious, what humans can know imposes no restriction on what is And "this" will only be a way out of the paradox after it specifies which axioms of classical logic are supposed to be dropped, and shows that what is left is enough and otherwise reasonable There are several options described in standard
Is there such a thing as absolute proof? - Philosophy Stack Exchange In classical logic, all contradictions are false, so if we to put a truth table of p and p ∧ ¬p, it would go like this: As you can see, the truth value of the contradiction is always false There are other indemonstrables aside from the LNC, such as the law of excluded-middle, which can also be called as the principle of bivalence
What is the philosophical difference between Reality and Truth? Truth is a property of propositions, mostly propositions claiming facts Hence truth lives in a completely different domain "It rains today" is a proposition which claims a fact The proposition can be true or false On the other hand, facts are not true or false Instead, they are or they are not See also What is the difference between Fact
logic - Is finding truth possible? - Philosophy Stack Exchange If they do, then you found truth, otherwise, you did not Since all it takes is one true statement to find truth, then it is very possible to find truth For example, 2 + 2 = 4 or, 2H + O -> water molecule or, the sun rises and sets every day, etc
Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem: How can truth go deeper than proof? Truth, in the sense you are using it here, is a semantic notion It is not equivalent to proof as you suggest On the other hand, (mathematical) proof is a syntactic notion Gödel's result is essentially saying that semantics cannot be reduced to syntax