What theory of "Truth" do you hold?

[Hnv1]

Which philosophical theory of Truth do you espouse?

Broad definitions:

Correspondence - roughly speaking, truth is the correspondence to some fact. "Snow is white" is true by virtue of corresponding to the fact that whiteness is a predicate for snow. Correspondence usually entails realism and reference between our words and the "world".
There could be variations of this pretty intuitive theory. see
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/

Coherence - truth is coherence with other propositions. This usually implies conventionalism as mere coherence is a low threshold for truth. "Snow is white" is true due to the linguistic conventions governing our use of "snow" and "white." Along with coherence with other propositions such as "snow is not green", "what is white is not black" and so on.

Pragmatist - truth is measured by its usefulness to enquiry. There is some ambiguity between American pragmatists if truth is simply what is useful to believe or whether it is simply the outcome of a successful enquiry (or perhaps the end outcome of all inquiries).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pragmatic

Pluralistic - truth is truth in a domain of discourse. What is true in physics may not be true in biology and so on. Pluralism can be an extension of correspondence or a variant of deflationary theories.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-pluralist/

Deflationary - not really a theory, more of a strand of opinions that the concept of truth in the way currently understood is uninteresting to some extent and we can do without it. Or a minimal view that it is simply not the most fundamental or interesting concept.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/

I personally abhor correspondence or naive realism of any sort (especially meta-ethical).
I hold a mix of Brandom's prosentential theory where "is true" simply reiterates content, and content (and meaning) is determined by convention (though not necessarily coherent conventions), and reference is fixed by pragmatic considerations.

"It is true that it was raining on Sunday." Therefore speaker reiterates the content "it was raining on Sunday" for justification and material inference. The content is determined by conventions of the linguistic framework which fixes references according to their use (we need to coordinate on a time unit called a week, we need to agree on a number of days, and how to refer to them).

No realism or direct reference between words\sentences\thoughts and "ultimate" reality

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

These are words.

[Hnv1]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

[Benjamin Frank]

I believe this fits here:

[Hnv1]

I believe this fits here:

I’ll be the first to dish pointless analytics like possible worlds and causes. But a theory of truth has very concrete social consequences for what we take to be “right” or “rational” way of going about. Or who we grant authority and on what grounds.

Americans should be the first to understand the highly political nature of what it is for something to be true and self-evident…

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

[Blue3]

Which philosophical theory of Truth do you espouse?


I personally abhor correspondence or naive realism of any sort (especially meta-ethical).
I hold a mix of Brandom's prosentential theory where "is true" simply reiterates content, and content (and meaning) is determined by convention (though not necessarily coherent conventions), and reference is fixed by pragmatic considerations.

"It is true that it was raining on Sunday." Therefore speaker reiterates the content "it was raining on Sunday" for justification and material inference. The content is determined by conventions of the linguistic framework which fixes references according to their use (we need to coordinate on a time unit called a week, we need to agree on a number of days, and how to refer to them).

No realism or direct reference between words\sentences\thoughts and "ultimate" reality

Can you define the terms in your poll, at least?

[John Dule]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

It's not my duty to educate you.

[PSOL]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

It's not my duty to educate you.

These are sh!tposts

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

It's not my duty to educate you.

These are sh!tposts

UwU

[Benjamin Frank]

[quote author=Hnv1 link=topic=481764.msg8465925#msg8465925 date=1644148313
I’ll be the first to dish pointless analytics like possible worlds and causes. But a theory of truth has very concrete social consequences for what we take to be “right” or “rational” way of going about. Or who we grant authority and on what grounds.

Americans should be the first to understand the highly political nature of what it is for something to be true and self-evident…
[/quote]

1.Well, I'm Canadian.

2.I absolutely agree that objective facts and reality exist, but I think these things tend to be case by case specific, and I'm not sure that there are general themes as to what constitutes 'truth' beyond tests to determine validity and soundness.

I don't know if that fits into any of these categories, but I've been told before that I'm a pragmatist or maybe a situational pragmatist.

[Hnv1]

Which philosophical theory of Truth do you espouse?


I personally abhor correspondence or naive realism of any sort (especially meta-ethical).
I hold a mix of Brandom's prosentential theory where "is true" simply reiterates content, and content (and meaning) is determined by convention (though not necessarily coherent conventions), and reference is fixed by pragmatic considerations.

"It is true that it was raining on Sunday." Therefore speaker reiterates the content "it was raining on Sunday" for justification and material inference. The content is determined by conventions of the linguistic framework which fixes references according to their use (we need to coordinate on a time unit called a week, we need to agree on a number of days, and how to refer to them).

No realism or direct reference between words\sentences\thoughts and "ultimate" reality

Can you define the terms in your poll, at least?

added

[Hnv1]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

I didn't mean it as a slight, simply that it wasn't an obscure bunch of words like continental writers tend to.

Are you really so intellectually insecure that whatever you don't understand right away, or presented to you like a product you can simply choose from, must be ridiculed so you feel you gained some upper hand again?
That must be tiring being so on edge all the time.

Maybe it's me, but when I see something I don't understand I start by using google and learning instead of sh**tposting memes. I fail to see what someone who thinks the level of threads should be similar to political discourse on Reddit seeks in the religion & philosophy section. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm not sure what category exactly that falls into, but I see truth as essentially that which reconciles all subjective experiences. On an empirical level, a true statement would be one that can accurately describe every observation (and science progresses by attempting to craft theories and waiting for observations that disprove it, in order to then revise the theory in such a way as to account for these new observations, etc.). Metaphysical truth, meanwhile, should be something that connects all of us on a deeper level - something that explains why we are separate consciousnesses and how we might one day be reunited - and from that derives moral truth, ie what we owe to each other as conscious beings.

[John Dule]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

I didn't mean it as a slight, simply that it wasn't an obscure bunch of words like continental writers tend to.

Are you really so intellectually insecure that whatever you don't understand right away, or presented to you like a product you can simply choose from, must be ridiculed so you feel you gained some upper hand again?
That must be tiring being so on edge all the time.

Maybe it's me, but when I see something I don't understand I start by using google and learning instead of sh**tposting memes. I fail to see what someone who thinks the level of threads should be similar to political discourse on Reddit seeks in the religion & philosophy section. 

It's common courtesy on this board to at least provide some explanation for the terms and ideas you're putting forth. I try to do this even for concepts that are pretty well-known, like the Hobbesian state of nature or Kant's categorical imperative, because my goal is to include as many people in the discussion as possible. Various thinkers and authors use different terms for the same things, so when you start a thread like this, you should probably be clear up-front about what you're referencing. Personally, when I read this thread title I was expecting some reference to Nietzschean subjectivity, which didn't materialize.

[If my soul was made of stone]

It's common courtesy on this board to at least provide some explanation for the terms and ideas you're putting forth.

[gestures wildly at Kingpoleon name-checking five obscure theologians in every sentence he writes without actually saying anything about them]

[John Dule]

It's common courtesy on this board to at least provide some explanation for the terms and ideas you're putting forth.

[gestures wildly at Kingpoleon name-checking five obscure theologians in every sentence he writes without actually saying anything about them]

The next time he surfaces, that meme I posted above has got his name on it.

[Hnv1]

These are words.

I understand that you never read Hegel or Gadamer if you think that "these are words".

Nice.

I didn't mean it as a slight, simply that it wasn't an obscure bunch of words like continental writers tend to.

Are you really so intellectually insecure that whatever you don't understand right away, or presented to you like a product you can simply choose from, must be ridiculed so you feel you gained some upper hand again?
That must be tiring being so on edge all the time.

Maybe it's me, but when I see something I don't understand I start by using google and learning instead of sh**tposting memes. I fail to see what someone who thinks the level of threads should be similar to political discourse on Reddit seeks in the religion & philosophy section. 

It's common courtesy on this board to at least provide some explanation for the terms and ideas you're putting forth. I try to do this even for concepts that are pretty well-known, like the Hobbesian state of nature or Kant's categorical imperative, because my goal is to include as many people in the discussion as possible. Various thinkers and authors use different terms for the same things, so when you start a thread like this, you should probably be clear up-front about what you're referencing. Personally, when I read this thread title I was expecting some reference to Nietzschean subjectivity, which didn't materialize.

Noted. Though this may cause the answers to be framed in some specific way. Correspondence for Russell is very different from correspondence in MacIntyre. Peirce, James, and Dewey had very different conceptions of pragmatism. etc. So I left the definitions as family resemblance definitions.

Regarding the taxonomy, this is pretty much the accepted taxonomy of theories of truth (I lumped coherence, conventional, and constructivist theories together here as they're close enough).

I'm not an expert on Nietzsche but from what I recall his theory is rudimentary and can be understood along different lines with the only thing certain that he's anti-correspondence.
He seems to espouse conventionalism, pluralism, or radical deflationary view about Truth according to different interpretations. If someone is very adamant about this or another specific theory that he doesn't think fits in any other category there's the other option.

The problem with the views of historical figures like FN is that being very generalized they are ambiguous.
One would expect a fully-fledged theory of truth to explain certain things. If we start with Nietzschean conventionalism about concepts we need that theory to explain why assertions like "John is there" with a proper name and an indexical can be true in our commonsensical way. Is John here a metaphor? or is [being-yonder] a predicate? Or we need some explanation why certain "truths" appear to have some effect, why do physical calculations work? why is it prudent for us to use truth ascriptions to "facts" going about in our lives?

I get Nietzschean conventionalism about concepts, its a good starting point, but still falls short of a full theory.