What is truth?

[C0FFINCASE]

How do you define what is true and be extension what is reality.

There is a general agreement among scholars that truth is a property of statements (propositions). However, it is notoriously difficult to provide an informative account of the concept “truth”. I presented three of the most popular theories of truth, namely, the Correspondence theory, the Coherence theory, and the Pragmatic theory.

The Correspondence theory maintains that propositions are true by virtue of their correspondence to the objective reality. For example, the proposition “There is a book on the table.” would be true if there is a mind-independent reality of objects in which there is a table with a book on the table. This position is very appealing to many people because it reflects most of our pre-philosophical intuitions on the matter. However, there are two main problems for the correspondence theory of truth.
First, the relation of correspondence between mental entities (beliefs, statements, propositions) and the objective reality raises a lot of concerns. Reality is presented to us in our mental states. Thus, everything that people consider “objective” has an essential subjective component. If we do not have an independent access to one element of the correspondence relation, then the relation begins to appear vague and mysterious.
Second, there are many propositions that are considered true without any obvious relation of correspondence. For example, the truths of mathematics, logic, and ethics do not seem to correspond to anything objective. Thus, the correspondence theory is at best incomplete because of its inability to account for the status of abstract truths.

The Coherence theory of truth has emerged as an alternative to the correspondence theory. The Coherence theory maintains that the truth of a proposition is its relation of coherence with a previously accepted set of beliefs. A set of coherent beliefs should be understood as a self-sustained system of compatible beliefs. The coherence theory is able to explain more than the correspondence theory and it does not rely on the problematic appeal to a mind-independent reality. The biggest problem for the coherence theory is the charge that it makes truth relative to an individual. Since most people believe that they posses a set of coherent beliefs, then their beliefs will meet the coherence criterion of truth. However, it seems very counter-intuitive that there are so many sets of true beliefs.

The Pragmatic theory of truth takes a radical approach to the problem. The pragmatists maintain that the concerns of the Correspondence and the Coherence theories are very scholastic. As an alternative, the pragmatists suggest a new criterion of truth, namely, the positive practical significance of a belief. Thus, according to the pragmatic theory, a belief is true if it makes a positive impact on a person’s life. This seems to be an easy and convenient way to identify true beliefs but it leads to two main problems. First, it seems clear that some false beliefs can make a positive difference in a person’s life. Second, it seems that the pragmatists got things backwards. The pragmatist would say that a belief is true because it makes a positive impact on a person’s life but it would be easier to argue that a belief makes a positive impact because it is true. The Pragmatic account of truth may be appealing to many people but it comes with very serious theoretical problems.

In order to underscore the need for a good account of truth, I introduced the so-called Paradox of the Liar. What is the truth value of the following statement?

“The statement expressed by this sentence is false.”

If this self-referring statement is true, then it would have to be false and if it is false, then it would have to be true. A good theory of truth should be able to eliminate or explain away the above paradox.

[Sydd]

It's something that can be proven.
Ex: Nick has church today at 3pm.
If you checked Nick's paper, it would have the date on it and time.

[Shadow]

This reminds me of the first Matrix with Keanu Reeves.
I would say:
There is no set reality or truth because it's is different for everyone. Each individual has a different reality/truth.
Hope I made sense.

[C0FFINCASE]

It's something that can be proven.
Ex: Nick has church today at 3pm.
If you checked Nick's paper, it would have the date on it and time.

You have to assume there is paper to check, a church to be at, that there is a Nick and that there is time.
You're relying on Correspondence.

@Chief: You're think of Descartes' work "Dignity and Freedom"(Cogito ergo sum) while I am a huge Descertes fan his argument with that statement is flawed and Skinner ripped him apart in "Beyond Dignity and Freedom". Descertes main problem was he wrote the whole of his book to validate the Catholic Church's view and the existence of God. I agree with the God part of the endeavor but because it was basically church propaganda he was very constrained.
You also want to consider that in the Cogito ergo sum argument Descertes basically says your perceptions are worthless and easily fooled. The only things we know for certain are what can be expressed in mathematician equations. He called the truth "light" and that by gathering knowledge of truth you could "illuminate" God. Actually if you take out the section where Descertes argues god, certain chapter, I forget which you make his argument stronger, but Skinner still makes a very compelling argument.

@Shadow: subjective theory doesn't help. You can't say that because then in your reality it might be ok to shoot some one while in other peoples' that isn't ok. Subjective theory of truth means that no one can hold anyone else accountable for their actions.

[Shadow]

@C0FFINCASE: I'm not saying that it's the right thing. It's just how things are. And I in fact CAN say that.
It's probably why indigenous tribes still do many of the things that the U.S. for example would deem as the "wrong" thing to do. Though to those tribes, it's their reality.

[C0FFINCASE]

@C0FFINCASE: I'm not saying that it's the right thing. It's just how things are. And I in fact CAN say that.
It's probably why indigenous tribes still do many of the things that the U.S. for example would deem as the "wrong" thing to do. Though to those tribes, it's their reality.

No its there way and system, not reality. There is no personal reality there is your perception and reality. Two very different things.

[Simon Fiction™]

I have a basic understanding of the Liar Paradox, most of it taken from late night TV and various discussions with mates - but i'm unsure as to how my knowledge fairs...so;
The next sentance is false.
The previous sentance is true.

That would be paradoxical, since it has no litteral way to take it as truth.

With your example;
If the statement is true, then everything inside it must be true, but in that it says it's false, it contradicts itself; It's neither true or false.

but as i said; my knowledge is about 30mins worth of explanation from a few people who did philosophy A-level for 2 years. So it's mostly likely incorrect or lacking the key point of the exercise

[C0FFINCASE]

The next sentance is false.
The previous sentance is true.

That would be paradoxical, since it has no litteral way to take it as truth.

With your example;
If the statement is true, then everything inside it must be true, but in that it says it's false, it contradicts itself; It's neither true or false.

A complete system of truth doesn't allow for paradoxes. That's kind of the point of my question and topic. Nice try though.

[sighkick]

Truth is everybody agrees that The Certain thing is the way it is or happened