10.7.09 WHAT IS TRUTH?

TRUTH IS THAT WHICH CORRESPONDS TO REALITY OR REFLECTS REALITY-WHAT REALLY IS.

metaphysical truth is that which corresponds with reality or reflects reality - what really is. by correspondence we mean agreement with something, in this case a thot of statment about reality agrees with reality. by reality we mean that which is or exists.

subjectivism is where truth or reality is determined internally by the subject or person.

aristotle: truth relies on the actual existence of the thing which a thot/statement is about. ..'if there is a man, the statement whereby we say that there is a man is true, and reciprocaly - since if the statement whereby we say that there is a man is true, (then in reality) there is a man. and whereas the true statementis in no way the cause of the actual thing's existence, the actual thing does seem in some way the cause of the statement's being true: it is because the actual thing exists or does not the athe staement is called true or false.'

norman geisler: truth is what corresponds to its referent (the idea to which a word refers). truth about reality is what corresponds to the way things really are. truth is 'telling it like it is'. this correspondence applies to abstract realities as well as actual ones. ther are mathematical truths. there are also truths about ideas. in each case there is a reality, and truth accurately expressed it. falsehood, then, is what does not correspond. it tells it like it is not, misrepresenting the way things are...

relativism is the theory that 'there is no objective standard by which truth may be determined, so that truth varies with individuals and circumstances'. ..2 propositions: truth is not relative to space and time and truth is not relative to persons.

regarding the first the relativist would say that the statement, 'the pencil is to the left of the pad', is relative since it depends on which side of the desk you are standing. place is always relative to perspective, they say. but truth can be time bound as well. at one time, it was perfectly true to say, 'reagan is president', but one can hardly say that now. it was true at one time, but not now. the truth of such statements is irrevocably contingent on the time at which they are said'..but that perspective is understood in statements about space and time..'as regards time and place, the perspective of the speaker, temporal and spacial, is understood in the statement. for example, 'reagan is president', when said in 1986 is true and IT ALWAYS WILL BE TRUE. if someone uses the same words in 1990, then he is making a new and different truth claim, because the present tense is now four years removed from the context of the other statement. the spatial and temporal context of statements is an ingerent part of the context which determines the meaning of that assertion. however, if 'reagan is president' (said in 1986) is always true for everyone, everywhere, then it is an absolute truth. the same can be said about the pencil on the dest. the perspective of the speaker is understood as part of the context. it is an absolute truth.

truth not relative to persons..

'while rain is falling here, that rain is not synthesized existentially with 'not falling'. that is absolute. it is not relative to the observer...'

mortimer adler - the remark 'that may be true for you, but not for me is not mistaken but often misinterpreted. the misinterpretation 'arises from the failure to distinguish between the truth or falsity that inheres in a proposition or statement and the judgment that a person makes with regard to the truth/falsity of the statement in question. we may differ in our judgment about what is true, but that does not affect the truth of the matter itself'..the truth or falsity of a statement 'derives from its relation to the ascertainable facts, not from its relation to the judgments that human beings make'.. adler thus distinguishes between the objectivity of truth and subjectivity of judgment.

self-defeating nature of relativism..'either relativism is a genuine theory in which a real assertion is made or else it isn't. but any attempt to assert relativism without relying on just-plaine (absolute) truth would inevitably fail, because it would generate an infinite regress. and, of course, any assertion of relativism that does rely on just-plain (absolute) truth would be self-defeating. so it looks like any apparent assertion of relativism is either self-deeating or else is not a real assertion, but something more like an empty slogan.

the 'infinite regress' mentioned above 'occurs when the relativist claims that the theory of relativism is true. the theory is true either absolutely (for all people, at all times and all places or relatively. if the theory is true absolutely, then relativism is false for at least one truth is true absolutely. but if the theory is only relatively true, the ? must be asked, 'to whom is it true (relatively)? suppose it is true relative to some person named john. the relativist is then asserting that relativism is true for john. but is this claim (that relativism is true for john true absolutely or relatively? if absolutely, then relativism must be false; but if relatively, then relative to whom? relative to john? relative to someone else? suppose the claim that relativism is true for john is true relative to some other person named suzie. now the relativist will have to explain whether this truth is absolute or relative, and if the latter, for whom it is true. bnd by now the relativist is well on his way to nowhere. eventually, the person will either have to admit that at least one truth is absolutely true, in which case relativism is false, or else he will be unable to say what is really being asserted when he claims that relativism is true. so relativism is either self-defeating, and therefore false, or unassertable

if relativism were true, then the world would be full of contradictory conditions. for if something is true for me but false for you, then opposite conditions exist. for if i say 'there is milk in the refrigerator' and you day 'there is not any milk in the refrigerator' - and we both are right. then there must both be and not be milk in the refrigerator at the same time and in the same sense. but that is impossible. so, if truth were relative, then an impossible would be actual.

absolute truth is denied because of the desire to be accepted; to be 'with it', fashionable, avant garde; aversion to difficulty that adherence to the truth brings; the belief that the 'reality' of ever-changing evolution makes absolutes impossible; adverseness to anything that would judge and condemn them.

taken from mcdowell's 'evidence that demands a verdict'