Is truth language dependent?: Philosophy Forums

Is truth language dependent?

apeiron
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 08, 2007
Location: local group
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 95

Posted 04/05/08 - 10:23 PM: Subject: Is truth language dependent?	#1
This is probably an 'external' question with regards to any system containing this concept. Truth holds a fundamental place in any axiomatic system. In fact it acquires its definition from the given system supporting it. Now if that is the case, it follows that there is no "absolute" truth somehow independent of any given syntactic system. I've found that this conclusion comes as a surprise to some. I understand that this is because the somehow vague everyday use of the concept of truth nevertheless remains fundamental to people's worldview. Intuition seems to demand that rather everything else depends on truth, and therefore the idea of truth being dependent on language may seem to some as unacceptable. For one reason or another I don't have a problem with that conclusion, and would be very interested in the views (and justifications of them) of those who think otherwise.

Authenticus
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 06, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 1

Posted 04/06/08 - 04:34 AM:	#2
I agree with you here. Truth, the word itself, is a human construct that exists only through language itself. Pure truth can exists, but that depends on one's definition of the word. How can the concept of the word 'truth' be understood without words and proven so? It cannot...... Some people may believe that truth can be proven as absolute only because our world consists of consentual views; however, these views do not mean absolute, for if even one person disagree's, it destroys the whole system.

unenlightened
Mysteriosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 813

Posted 04/06/08 - 05:22 AM:	#3
True also means straight, in alignment and can be applied to thermometers for example when the readings they 'give' correspond to the temperature of the surroundings. If the question is meaningful, then it is asking about the truth of the statement, 'Truth is language dependent.' (Careful with that reccursion, Eugene). At some level, I would like to hope that language has the possibility of being true in the sense of being in alignment with the world. As for example, it is true that I am responding to this thread, and although I am responding through language, and my example is expressed in the same language, there is a state of affairs being portrayed, that happens to be the case. It is not true that I am digging the garden.
_____________________ The observer is the observed. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

jeffmcmahan
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2007
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 41

Posted 04/08/08 - 07:35 AM:	#4
Truth holds a fundamental place in any axiomatic system. Actually Tarski showed that such systems, when they are allowed to contain their own truth predicates, lead to the Liar's Paradox. Truth can only be ascribed (meaningfully) from a metalanguage, according to Tarski (whose view I think is dominant?). Now if that is the case, it follows that there is no "absolute" truth somehow independent of any given syntactic system. Well if you want to step outside of a particular language-game (and thus outside of the syntactic system which its participants adibe in), and say, "these words could be variously interpreted, such that 'truth' doesn't mean what they think it means," you're free to do so, but I am not sure that this kind of assertion has any weight. What 'truth' does within a language-game is what matters. Now, I am not suggesting that people don't often like to argue absolutist ideas well outside of the context ordinary use--they do, and their arguments are prey to the same criticism as yours. However, you cannot claim that truth is somehow an empty concept simply because it is a taxonomic artifact. "Balloon" is a taxonomic artifact in the same way, and it thus follows that balloons don't exist in an absolute sense, rather, they're a result of a certain way of cognizing the world (into onotlogically distinct, characteristic objects). But how sensible is the argument that balloons don't exist? Not very sensible at all, by my lights.

You don't have permission to post.