Political Crossfire Forums

[Nathyn]

OK, as you all know, I'm sort of philosophically pre-occupied, actually obsessed, with truth.

So far, my own definition of truth essentially boils down to, "I'm right and you're wrong." The pragmatic theory is the most reasonable way of settling conflicts between us (then again, that's ultimately because I say so! :P)

Until recently, I thought that Tarski's definition of truth was also useful in a formal, logical sense. While I think it's still the theory most heavily grounded in formal logic, I've had a recent insight.

There's a truth-theory known as the deflationary theory. It isn't a full substantive theory in and of itself, but just a theory about truth. The deflationary theory of truth states that to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself. And so, it's also referred to as the "semantic," theory of truth. In sophist-like fashion, it asserts that saying any statement is true is to just say that a statement is true.

Well, my own theory of truth was itself objectionable because I still hadn't truly settled the fact that the most fundamental concepts of "everything," are circularly defined. Reality is defined in terms of what is real, truth is defined in terms of true statements, knowledge is defined in terms of what is known, etc. Tarski's theory of truth (which is a deflationary theory) settles this contradiction by saying that our truths are simply defined in terms of the languages in which we speak in. The most fundamental concepts -- truth, reality, etc -- must be defined in a language before any further assertion can take place, the same way that certain fundamental ideas in mathematics are assumed.

Aside from being incompatible with my theory of "I'm right and you're wrong," this alone didn't seem sufficient.

The insight I had was sort of the opposite of what Tarski claimed. Deflationary theory is called "deflationary," as it seems to me, because it seems to deflate the concept of truth to something seemingly less than what it intuitively appears to be.

Well, instead of a deflationary theory of truth, I propose an inflationary theory of truth.

Tarski's theory of truth has come about, not because it is necessarily true (another circular argument!) but because all discussions of truth are engaged in languages. Even right now, I am speaking to you in a language. Language is a limitation upon communication, but not intuitively a limitation upon knowledge. I.E., even a baby who can't speak knows a bit about the world around them. The same goes for animals.

And so, back to the deflationary theory. The deflationary theory states, "to assert that a statement is true is just to assert the statement itself."

To somewhat turn that on its head, I will now claim that truth cannot be defined in terms of statements. We gain a definition of truth, not through language, but through the epistemological conception, the "idea" of truth, a sort of "super-language," of being. Truth and the other most fundamental concepts are known, not because we can say to one another in words how we perceive them or have logically deduced that they exist, but because they lay at the foundation of our existence and it is impossible to fully translate that into language. "Nihilism," is merely a notion created by language as the logical consequence of attempting to define truth in terms of language. I also fully recognize that, in saying this, I am not fully demonstrating the concept that truth is understood because its idea is grasped because I'm speaking in language. One might rightfully ask, "Can't the communication of words enable another to grasp the idea?" It might, but the words themselves are insufficient.

90% of the time, our words do not even communicate meaning. This is clear from this political forum itself. Constantly, you will make an argument and a person who disagrees with you just won't understand. He will accuse you of the same. But it's doubtful that many of you have considered that others' feelings, the same feelings you have, are just as legitimate and sincere. Neither one of you is intentionally being ignorant or stupid. But rather, your conceptions are understood as "ideas," and cannot be properly translated into language.

[anselfir]

comment later.