What is Truth? Philosopher discusses theories of truth | Attic Philosophy

[@fredkyowa4905]

You're a life savior! I been looking for hundreds of videos explaining the value of truth and I scroll down on your channel. I already knew you will be the guy I need

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Glad it was useful!

[@crazyartss2]

YOOOOO, as a diagnose MDD 4 years... I often view the world like the TARSKI THEORY and my people around me love the DEFLATIONISM TRUTH.. I can't explain to them how my brain works..and they often told me to KEEP IT SIMPLE having this knowledge help me to understand different ways of thinking for the pursuit of truth. therefore, I'm loving this knowledge thank you for sharing this, to made a world into a better place .. ONE video at the Time!! very POG

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@crazyartss2]

@@AtticPhilosophy is it possible to ddo one on one with you, I feel like I need to do more learn to understand.. but I doubt that I'll never understand.. since the truth is messy.. It's okay to teach me slowly one on one or do you sir, prefer that it's better for me to watch "the carefully articulate / structual paradigms youtube video over and over to understand with my own reality of content? (Idk words, genuinely curious and sorry if offend with bad English : from malaysia ✨) 🙏"

[@crazyartss2]

Also I just learn paradigms shift, sooo.. it's fun to learn this.. I'm like 24 still baby.. but I guess that my reality?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@crazyartss2 Sure, drop me a DM on Twitter (@Mark_Jago) and we'll see if we can work something out for you.

[@crazyartss2]

I like to believe this is a fun introduction, about how complex my mind is

[@jestaman3356]

I'm finding your videos so easy to understand. Why can't my philosophy professors explain things in an easier manner the way you do?!?! Thanks so much Mark!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Haha thanks! I've been teaching this stuff a long time, so I've worked out what works & what doesn't.

[@jestaman3356]

@@AtticPhilosophy I do have one question, hopefully you can quickly clarify! In my philosophy class, for the liars paradox, we use the example... (S) S is not true. I'm a little confused on the way this is written. What is the difference between (S) and "S" in the example? I understand the liars paradox if we just talk about the statement "S is not true." But the extra (S) at the beginning of the statement confuses me and idk what it is supposed to represent or why it's at the beginning of the sentence...

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@jestaman3356 Academic writers often use numbers of names for example sentences, often with the name or number written in brackets, like this: (1) This is example 1 (2) This is example 2 Or with a name, (E) This is the example sentence I'm calling 'E' And so you can write a sentence, calling it 'S', which refers to itself, like this: (S) The sentence called 'S' isn't true Hope that helps!

[@jestaman3356]

@@AtticPhilosophy That makes perfect sense. Thanks for taking the time to explain it :) much appreciated!

[@HairyandFinanciallySolvent]

Truth is truth, it is inherent in its definition, a lot is said amounting to nothing. We cannot easily understand many or even most truths but I feel it exists independent of our capacity to recognize it. In essence, Wittgenstein is right, the correspondence theory is correct, and all other discussions surrounding truth are confusions of language. A reality either exists or does not exist. Gravity was true before we understood it and remains true after our understanding of it. The same holds for emerging fields of quantum physics, things may appear contradictory or inexplicable but the truth of their machinations exists. Whatever the machinations of these quantum actions are, that is the truth. This is my view, Truth is an incredibly straightforward concept and DOES exist in a pure form. Our discovery of truth and understanding of it is complicated. That is due to our limitations, not the limitations of truth. Furthermore the introduction of subjective/personal truth I feel has done a great deal of damage to our discussion of many topics as it leads people to stop seeking truth, even ignoring evidence, clinging to their preferred reality rather than truth revealing itself.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

"Truth is truth" - well no one's going to argue with that!

[@JoshKings-tr2vc]

Coherence I think works only within its canon domain. For example, Star Wars has its own canon domain of truth while also having Legend (which personally is better) domain of truth. I subscribe to correspondence, although deflationism seems interesting.

[@GFumet]

Love these videos! And loving the book! Convinced some friends to read the chapter on propositions with me! Keep these coming!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Oh wow, that's great to hear! Let me know any comments or questions you've got on the book.

[@chrisparker2118]

I recommend a book by Catherine Pickstock called Aspects of Truth: A New Religious Metaphysics.

[@sarahrussell9808]

Truth is what is and what is undeniable by all. Truth needs no definition or defense. Truth is tautological. ❤

[@AtticPhilosophy]

You just gave 3 different (and incompatible!) definitions of truth, and also said it has no definition. It’s really not so simple!

[@randomvide1]

New to philosophy and hearing this; I'm leaning towards deflationary

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Yes, it's probably the simplest theory, with the fewest metaphysical commitments. It's probably the one most contemporary philosophers accept.

[@todd4956]

You would do exceptionally well to explore the Reformed Metaphysics of the late Philosopher and Historian, R.G Collingwood.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Interesting philosopher, but he seemed confused on truth.

[@todd4956]

@@AtticPhilosophy did you delete my response? I don't see it. Regardless, Collingwood was intelligent enough to understand the metaphysics involved with the idea of truth. The simple reality is that there is no escape from metaphysics. Take a peek at, "An Essay on Metaphysics" by R.G Collingwood. Get Collingwood under your belt and you will do exceptionally well.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@todd4956 I agree there's no escape from metaphysics - hence why I work in metaphysics - I just don't like Collingwood's way of doing it!

[@nameless-yd6ko]

Truth is One! 'Knowledge'; "that which is perceived! To Exist is to be perceived. To be perceived means to Exist. Nothing exists that is not perceived, nothing is perceived that does not exist! Thus, Existence is ALL-inclusive! Reality is predicated upon Existence! Thus, Reality is ALL-inclusive! Truth, being predicated on Reality must, also, be ALL-inclusive! Knowledge IS Truth! Truth IS Knowledge!

[@AtticPhilosophy]

There’s plenty of truths yet to be discovered, so truth & knowledge can’t be the same.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

@@AtticPhilosophy So, using logic, you know, philosophy, why not pick out whatever it was that I offered that you disagree with, specifically, and demonstrate it's logical failure. Educate me? From what I hear here your reasoning is sophomoric, at best; Your first declaration of "There’s plenty of truths yet to be discovered" indicates what a first grader might say regarding his imaginary trip to second grade. But do "his truths" not yet being discovered by "him" indicate that the "truths" have not been already Known? Hardly. That is just a lack in personal understanding and perception. Besides, I am not referring to subjective conditional 'truths', I refer to the One ALL-inclusive Truth, the complete 'set' within which all other sets fall. Your conclusion; "so truth & knowledge can’t be the same", thus, fails. I said something that you don't like, yet seem incapable of clearly defining why you don't like it. That certainly couldn't be the best you got?! We can all learn from a 'valid" criticism? ;)

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@nameless-yd6ko Sure, if you're open to learning! An example would be the exact number of atoms in the universe right now. No one knows exactly how many there are, but there is some number. So there is a truth that no one knows.

[@nameless-yd6ko]

@ "Sure, if you're open to learning!" ~~~ Though I might be "open to learning", I'm rather less open to a discussion beginning with pedantic twittery! "An example would be the exact number of atoms in the universe right now. No one knows exactly how many there are, but there is some number. So there is a truth that no one knows." ~~~ Feel free to demonstrate, give evidence of your unPERCEIVED 'truth'? What makes it different than a 'belief'? Sorry, your argument fails. Here's some food for thought; What you can offer evidence of, is your theory that there is a certain number of atoms or particles or whatever in the Universe. That is all I see. You are merely assuming, with no evidence. Other people assume that there are an 'infinite' number of atoms, etc... in an infinite Universe! That is 'their' theory/belief, also unevidenced, like the Atheist belief that God doesn't exist! There is also the quite science and philosophically backed theory that there really is not anything-in-itself in existence and no 'out-there' for it to exist in and no 'time' for it to exist. Frankly, that is a superior theory to the 'mass' of atoms for which you theorize, or the 'infinite' nonsense. Any 'atoms' or 'particles' or you or me exist in the same place that everything else PERCEIVED exists, in mind as concepts/memory. Perhaps 'you are open to learning' something? See?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@nameless-yd6ko I'm not a fan of the view you seem to like, that everything is subjective. (Very few if any professional philosophers believe it.) But suppose you're right. Then "everything is subjective" is itself subjective - true for you, false for me, and you're in no position to say that anyone else is right or wrong.

[@simonadecortis6605]

Thank you!!! Enlightening, interesting and also fun, which is very important 😉

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@water9684]

14:30 reminds me of Godel's incompleteness theorem, and seems consistent with its central theme :)

[@AtticPhilosophy]

It’s very close. Gödel used a sentence saying, “this sentence isn’t provable” in his proof. He got the idea from the liar paradox, which goes way back to Greek philosophy (and possibly even further back).

[@ETAZMT]

Hey Mark, any chance you'll be doing a video on your truth-making ideas?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Great idea! Maybe a bit niche for here? I'll give it a go!

[@ETAZMT]

@@AtticPhilosophy Maybe bit niche, but you might do a video on what properties are and why they are important, then states of affairs and why they are important, and build up to it bit by bit. Just an idea!

[@flowerinkproject]

Beautiful Lesson! Thank you :)

[@AtticPhilosophy]

You're welcome! One of my favourite topics, more to come next month!

[@airatoryt]

Identity theory of truth is the way

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Maybe - although it makes falsity very hard to explain!

[@airatoryt]

@@AtticPhilosophy Oh yeah of course 😅 I feel that it's a simpler view in regards to its theoretical commitments, as compared to other views. But like you said it's harder to explain falsity in this view. Thank you for this amazing video btw!

[@EmC-p2y]

I would really like to know what you think about how truth and the future interact. This is something I have been thinking hard about recently. Let P mean "it will rain at 02:00 UTC 1 January 2025 Southwark London"... Can this be assigned the property of true? It would be cool to have your input, about what you think when we try to combine truth and the future. What about "it is raining at 02:00 UTC 1 January 2025 Southwark London", is it the same meaning as the former? Truth + time make me... I'm scratching my head right now. I know that in your book, you talk about the truthmaker theory, and I find it really interesting

[@AtticPhilosophy]

There's various options, including: 1) The future doesn't exist (yet), so there's no truth-value (either way) to statements about the future 2) The future consists in various possible branches of reality, and statements about the future are true when they're true on all branches, false when they're false on all branches, and indeterminate otherwise 3) The future exists (just not yet), and so statements about the future have determinate truth-values. I like option 3. The best argument is from special relativity: one observer's present is another's future, and so there must be facts about (what for the 2nd observer is) the future.

[@puddingleaf]

Thanks Mark. This was a very enjoyable video. Whilst fundamentally uninspiring, it feels that the deflationist theory might be significantly more difficult to disprove than some of the other theories listed. Are there any interesting theories which deal with measures of truthiness as opposed to binary outcomes of truth?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Hi, thanks! Yes, some theories have ‘degrees of truth’ rather than binary true/false. Fuzzy logic, for example, has a continuous infinite scale of values from true to false. Karl Popper’s notion of verisimilitude, or truthlikeness, deals with how close a scientific theory is to the idea being that we can say that, eg, general relativity is closer to the truth than Newtonian mechanics.

[@mark_tom]

Truth is knowledge of reality.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Well, there are truths no one knows, so truth can’t be the same as knowledge!

[@oscarmoreno2585]

Great vid

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks!

[@AvianGecko]

Great vid can’t wait for the follow up.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! Next video on truth coming next week.

[@q-ism5745]

Interesting discussion. There's an interesting philosophy called Q ism which argues that truth has less to do with character (good vs bad, right vs wrong, reality vs fantasy) than with purity. Truth is synonymous with pure independence, the complete absence of bias.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Thanks! Truth isn't really to do with character, but whether one cares about the truth is. I discuss moral character & lying in my new videos on lying

[@henlo4718]

Sounds like Quality philosophy of Robert pirsig

[@ai_serf]

truth is simple to me. it's basically the rules of the system. in a game of chess, you have rules. premises related to chess can be interpreted as what the rules allow. so truth in chess can be some instance of what the rules allow.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Rules usually say what’s possible or necessary (or permissible or mandatory) in a system, like in your chess example. But they don’t say what’s true. For example, if the white Queen is on e2, the rules say that’s permitted, but don’t say that it’s true.

[@ai_serf]

@@AtticPhilosophy yes. a game of chess from the game tree seems to be a history of truth. truth has dynamics associated with it as a property of truth. heck, chess maybe a subset of a theory of truth, i.e. it's a theory of truth.

[@ronb1975]

Love your videos but why is your book so expensive?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

It’s with an academic press, always expensive in hardback. Most readers are academics who can read the ebook for free, do you have a Uni login? If not, my other recent book, Impossible Worlds, is open access (ie free ebook)

[@ronb1975]

Ok. Thanks. My Uni days are long over. @@AtticPhilosophy

[@raydencreed1524]

The point of a theory of truth is to provide a definition of what it is to be true, right?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Yes - or at least, that's the standard, narrow understanding. There's other approaches to 'theory of truth', like Bernard Williams's, which focuses more on the purpose of having a concept of truth and how it related to other concepts: sincerity, accuracy, and so on.

[@cjstevens6405]

Nice concise introduction... BUT 'end' needs to be understood more like 'aim' than 'completion' within pragmatist thought. The 'ideal end' of scientific inquiry is to discover truths in the same way that the 'ideal end' of an archer is to perfect her or his aim (my own illustrative reference to Cicero there). The targets, the 'objectives', we hit along the way of applying the scientific method are useful, but our 'end' goes beyond the sum total of the targets we have or ever will hit.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Good point, thanks! In the case of science, we obviously aim at the truth, but it seems hard to understand the ‘end’ of science like that - it’s not as if we give up after finding some truths!

[@pmcate2]

I don't see the difference between deflationism and correspondence theory.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

They are related, but think of it like this: correspondence theory says there must be some correspondence relation between language and things in the world. They then have to explain the relation, and the things in the world they're talking about. It gets quite metaphysical. Deflationism tries to do away with that: its slogan is 'no metaphysics!'

[@santiagoerpen7396]

Hi Mark! I'd like to add a similar question. What about the difference between tarskian theory and deflationism? Might it be the case that tarskian theory is just an answer to the question about the meaning and proper use of truth-predicate, while deflationism is an answer to the question about truth itself? Thank you so much! Great videos. Greetings from Argentina.

[@TSeries502]

If the universe is infinite every thing and nothing is the truth, even this statement

[@ericb9804]

sort of...the question isn't "what is truth?" but rather "how do we identify a true statement?" or, more precisely, "How do we tell the difference between a true statement and a not-true statement without begging the question 'what is truth' in the first place?" We can't (see Tarski). But we CAN tell the difference between a useful statement and a not-useful statement. The useful ones are the ones you call "platitudes" and we think we can justify them to anyone who questions them. "Truth" is the name we give to these statements we think we can justify to all who ask - and we dare them try (see science or politics). We can tell you about "justification," but we can't tell you about "truth," which is why it just doesn't matter. Pragmatism. See Rorty.

[@antarasinha8639]

Hello Mark, Thank you so much. I need to delve deeper to explore the theories of truth more truly ... I mean to grasp their meaning by my truths ... Right now, I would only like to ask you a question that is on the nature of truth. Someone was arguing with me tonight by mentioning that truth is only objective in nature but I don't think so. I think objective truths are valid only in our Physical world but we experience life through our subjective truths which are relative in nature and these subjective truths create our inner reality and it's the cause for creating difference among our perceptions. I think it's true. Would you please tell what do you think true in this context ?! Thank you. 🙏🙋 And I also think that this inner truth which is subjective & relative in nature is our consciousness also and it is dynamic in nature while the objective truths are usually unchangeable and we grow wise through the manifestation of our inner truth or evolution of our consciousness. I think & feel so.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Hi Antara, we all perceive things differently. To take a very simple case: if we stand in different places and look at the Arc de Triomphe, it'll look different to each of us: maybe like an arch or a tower, depending on where we are. So there are objective truths you could say: 'it's x meters tall', etc. And subjective truths: 'from here, it looks like a tower, not an arch'. How things look is a matter of objective fact and perspective. Similarly with more complex cases, like when you're evaluating a painting or some music. There's objective fact and perspective (which now includes things like your experience, you tastes, etc). Trust is a matter of latching on to the facts, but the facts can often involve your perspective, as when you say 'to me, it looks like this', or 'I think it's a good painting'. Not sure how much that answers your question, but I hope it helps!

[@bertrc2569]

The subjective and truth are incompatible. They are on different planes. Subjective is only 'opinion'. If you are dealing with opinions you are not dealing with truths. When you reach Truth you have reached a place that is permanent and beneficial to all. Untruths typically only benefit a few and are short lived.

[@benvendergood1064]

Is the nobility of suffering worth the logical fallacy of its truth? The truth often hurts because philosophers do not realize that truth, by definition, isn't true . . . The linguistic morpheme, "th" infers that an analysis is in progress. Truth infers an analysis of the probability that it is true (100% factual just as 1 + 1 = 2), an inference that a truth is never 100% true. Ergo to seek truth insures that one suffers to the exact degree that that truth was not true. Are we reaching synthesis as what is true from testing our truths OR are we killing what is true, one truth at a time?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

I'm guessing you're a random word generator?

[@benvendergood1064]

@@AtticPhilosophy What part of the question did you find too difficult to understand? Are you attempting to refute a question? That would have to be quite a reasoning. Or should you respond with another logical fallacy rather than delving in to an answer, then further responses further all fools. Loop all further responses loop. The number of your iterations is up to you of course. 🙃

[@AtticPhilosophy]

It didn't read like a question, more like a list of assertions. If you'd like to ask a question, ask politely!

[@benvendergood1064]

@@AtticPhilosophy Your perception was that my questions were impolite, and you framed your responses to me based on this judgement? Interesting. Would that be philosophy or psychology? Should philosophers see it as noble, even prerequisite, that they suffer for their wisdom? Do you feel that you would have to suffer in order to be a true philosopher? As an example, Camus thought torturing himself made him a great philosopher, while I would argue that he failed to realize that he was a philosophical genius in spite of his suffering, and not because of it . . .

[@benvendergood1064]

@@AtticPhilosophy What I stated were not assertions. They were observations. What do you understand of Linguistics and written morphologies? Stephen Hawking stated, "Philosophy is dead. All they have left s to study their languages." Yet, Stephen was known to have an exceptionally keen sense of humor and the solution observable : Philosophy is NOT dead because Stephen was RIGHT‼🙃

[@aisthpaoitht]

Truth is God.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

He can’t be all the truths! Which one did you have in mind?

[@aisthpaoitht]

@@AtticPhilosophy what does that even mean, he can't be all the truths?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@aisthpaoitht You said "truth is god". But that's clearly nonsense. Here's a truth: grass is green. Here's another one: the sky is blue. God can't be both those truths, else he'd be 2 things, not one.

[@aisthpaoitht]

@@AtticPhilosophy those are statements. The only truth is reality. And the only justification we can have for knowing any truth (through our limited knowledge) is through God. You can't even justify "grass is green" without presupposing objective, eternal truth (God).

[@socrates9344]

thanks for the clear explanation. Philosophers are a bunch of people who want to make things more complicated than they really are. Correspondence theory should be the only way for us to assess whether a claim is true or false, period. This is why philosophy is a junk discipline nowadays. If we want philosophy to be useful in guiding us to progress, we have to anchor it to the natural, observable, and measurable world of science.

[@farzad228]

There are some problems with the correspondence theory of truth. First, how can we prove that some mathematical formulas and equations are true using the correspondence theory of truth? Most mathematical equations and formulas don't correspond with reality, but we still consider them true. According to the correspondence theory of truth, those should be false. Furthermore, there is another problem with the correspondence theory of truth: its self-referential nature. How can we prove the very definition of truth? In reality, nothing corresponds with the definition of truth: "A proposition that corresponds with reality." You can't prove that definition of truth using the correspondence theory of truth because there is nothing in reality to correspond with it, and by the very standard of the correspondence theory, the definition would be false. So, I am curious what solution you have for these problems that arise with the correspondence theory?

[@familyshare3724]

The laugh test of truth

[@simonadecortis6605]

None of them works totally, I have a kind of “mixed” vision, in between deflationism and idealism I am trying to give shape to with words. But, according to Eckhart Tolle, for example, we can agree with the deflationists, what do you think?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Deflationism can be hard to combine with other theories of truth, because it’s quite ideological, insisting that there’s no substantial nature to truth. Other theories say there is (but disagree over what that nature is). So combining theories would end up with a partly substantial nature, which seems to go against the point of deflationism. But it could work - you never know until you’ve given it a proper go!

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

No verification = no truth

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Is that verifiable?!?

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

@@AtticPhilosophy Scientific method good place to start to find the answer

[@AtticPhilosophy]

​@@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu Yes, for questions within the remit of some science. But 'what is truth?' isn't such a topic. Science gives us truths, but doesn't tell us what truth itself is.

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

@@AtticPhilosophy Can't measure a pound of truth yes. Hard to measure such concepts like justice too. But they are hardwired into our Brains.

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

Consciousness is TRUTH. If you aren't conscious, truth does NOT exist.

[@AtticPhilosophy]

Well, imagine a situation with no conscious beings (like, the early universe). Isn't it true, in that situation, that there's no conscious beings? If you weren't conscious, wouldn't it be true that you're not conscious?

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

@@AtticPhilosophy Sounds almost circular or tautological but yes. Science might not exist without conscious self awareness. Unless God's consciousness preexisted all others ?

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu But the question isn't whether *science* would exist without consciousness (obviously not, as it's a human endeavour), but whether there would be *truths* without anyone being conscious. I'd say there would be truths, such as the truth (in that situation) that there are no conscious beings.

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

@@AtticPhilosophy Oh. Unverifiable,untestable truth? Sounds " religious".

[@AtticPhilosophy]

@@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu Well, not necessarily unverifi*able*, just unverified. We can clearly say with a high degree of reliability that, in the early years of the universe, there were no humans, in a way that should satisfy verificationists. But just FYI, verificationism is now not at all a popular philosophical view. For one thing, the verification principle itself is unverifiable.

[@edgarmorales4476]

Jesus came to show humanity what was possible, not only that people could be happy with little; but that all humanity are in fact children of an infinitely wealthy and generous father, and that a happy and abundant life is within everyone's reach; not just in a supposed heaven. Once the Truth is understood, inner and outer riches and contentment are possible for any and all who are willing to live according to the Truth; and the Truth Jesus speaks of is Love. Allowing Love to guide you in your life is all that is required to live a blessed life, one full of Love and other types of abundance; creativity, joy, fulfillment, beauty and adoration of the One God abiding within everything; giving life to everything. It is that, the divinity in all, that Jesus came into life to honor and to spread the word about. The lowliest and mightiest in society are equally beLoved in the eyes of God, in the eyes of that which is behind all of creation; and which lives and breaths through all of creation.