Notes and Thoughts

An experiment to spark conversation


Correspondence and Identity are theories, not truth

Scenario 1: Truth Exists.

Eg: A rock is true. Not that "a rock exists" is true but that "a rock" is true.

The above person holds the identity theory about truth: there is no difference between truth and facts or things. This seems to have been the original position of the founders of analytic philosophy, but they later realized it caused problems, eg. in explaining how false propositions are ever possible. (Moore 1899, 1902; Russell 1904).)

Scenario 2: Truth depends on proposition and its relation to world.

Eg: "A rock exists" is true, where as "a rock is true" is a meaningless proposition.

The above person holds the correspondence theory about truth: truth cannot be contained within the proposition or in the object/subject/reality/world. It lies in the relation between the two. Mainstream view in analytic philosophy. (Russell 1956; Scott 1984). Some other users have mentioned Tarski's (1935) definition of truth, which is usually embedded in the metaphysics of a Correspondence theory.


What is truth? (From Reddit r/logic)

Michael Glanzberg. (2006). Truth, S.E.P