Truth vs Fact.

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I would say that a fact is a true statement, but I don't know if this is its formal definition in philosophical logic.

In the Kantian tradition, there are analytic and synthetic truths (propositions).

Analytic truths are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept, so they are independent of real-world matters of fact. They include mathematical & logical truths and statements like 'an unmarried man is a batchelor'; they are, in a sense, tautological.

Synthetic truths are not analytic, they depend on real-world matters of fact, they are products of experience. The predicate concept is related to but not contained in the subject concept. So a statement like, 'Jim is a batchelor' will be a synthetic truth (if and only if Jim is unmarried).

So a real-world 'fact' is a synthetic truth in that tradition - as long as it really is a fact; i.e. as long as the statement corresponds to reality. Lots of things are claimed to be factual when they are mistaken or just matters of opinion.

Having said that, there's a lot more to truth in philosophy than the Kantian tradition alone...

 

[Dialogist]

Analytic truths are true by definition, the predicate concept is contained in the subject concept, so they are independent of real-world matters of fact. They include mathematical & logical truths and statements like 'an unmarried man is a batchelor'; they are, in a sense, tautological.

Given that an unmarried man can now be a bachelorette, would Kant now have to recast some of his definitions?

Thank you for the explanation on Kant. I haven't mustered up the courage to study him. I have trouble getting engaged in those areas of philosophy that aren't associated with equations.

Can you recommend any good, straightforward books?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

life. affirm or negate.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I always think the truth must be linked to an unchallenged authority. Without that authority, any so-called truth is debatable. For example, for German people in WWII, what Hitler said IS the truth. And for Chinese people in 1960's, whatever Chairman Mao said IS the truth.

If you accept subjective, relative truth of this kind, do you see objective truth as a different kind of thing? By objective truth, I mean things that are true for everyone. Are objective truths always linked to an unchallenged authority? I'm thinking particularly of truths about the physical world. And if the real world itself is said to be an unchallenged authority (or, perhaps, our experience of it), then what happens if here is a contradiction between, say, Chairman Mao's pronouncements, and real-world experience? If Mao says everyone can live and work on a cup of rice a week, but only people who have more than one cup actually survive, is what Mao says still true?

... there is no truth for humanist, because to them, human is god and humans are equal. "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" may not be a truth for humanists.

It seems to me that truth, for a humanist, will be what they believe, whether that is that humans are god (really? I don't think Feuerbach meant it literally) or whatever. "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" isn't a truth for anyone, it's an imperative. The corresponding truth would be, "It is wrong to kill (murder)". As far as I know, all established human cultures see murder as wrong - where they differ is in the definition of murder, i.e. the rules for justifiable vs unjustifiable killing.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

worldly rivalry diverts you... untill you visit the graves.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I have trouble getting engaged in those areas of philosophy that aren't associated with equations.

I have the inverse problem - Principia Mathematica would be ideal bedtime reading if I can't sleep (but a hard pillow).

Can you recommend any good, straightforward books?

Not really, I've been taking short courses and reading online stuff - when Wikipedia doesn't cut it, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is useful; some of 'The Great Courses' are really good too - they can be expensive, but look for special offers - I got 'The Modern Intellectual Tradition from Descartes to Derrida' on offer - you only need the audio download - and I think it's excellent; 36 lectures by a world expert.

 

[Dialogist]

I have the inverse problem - Principia Mathematica would be ideal bedtime reading if I can't sleep (but a hard pillow).


Not really, I've been taking short courses and reading online stuff - when Wikipedia doesn't cut it, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is useful; some of 'The Great Courses' are really good too - they can be expensive, but look for special offers - I got 'The Modern Intellectual Tradition from Descartes to Derrida' on offer - you only need the audio download - and I think it's excellent; 36 lectures by a world expert.

Thank you! I will check those out.

Try Samuel Guttenplan's The Languages of Logic

 

[bhsmte]

worldly rivalry diverts you... untill you visit the graves.

???

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Here's another.

Fact: The way things are (and so often sadly so).

Truth: The way things ought to be, i.e."We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

 

[bhsmte]

Here's another.

Fact: The way things are (and so often sadly so).

Truth: The way things ought to be, i.e."We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

Who decides; "the way things out to be"?

 

[Larniavc]

It is the truth that they should stay and work to solve those problems in their native lands.

No. Sigh. It is your opinion that they should stay in their homeland.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Try Samuel Guttenplan's The Languages of Logic

Thanks, I'll put it on the (ever growing) list of stuff I want to read.

After 25 years writing software, I'm reasonably good with basic logic, which gets me by. One of the problems I find with some philosophical arguments is that they restrict their contexts to the point where the logic is clear but lacks relevance in the bigger picture.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No. Sigh. It is your opinion that they should stay in their homeland.

Based on the big mess they are making here the truth is self evident, wouldn't you say?

 

[bhsmte]

Based on the big picture the truth of this is self-evident.

That is opinion.

 

[Larniavc]

Based on the big picture the truth of this is self-evident.

Then I can only conclude that your actual point of this thread is 'OldWiseGuy's opinion=Truth'.

I do not concur.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Then I can only conclude that your actual point of this thread is 'OldWiseGuy's opinion=Truth'.

I do not concur.

One's opinion can also be the truth.

 

[bhsmte]

One's opinion can also be the truth.

Sure, if it can be demonstrated to be true.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Sure, if it can be demonstrated to be true.

I can agree with that.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Based on the big mess they are making here the truth is self evident, wouldn't you say?

Just like the big mess than guns are making means that it is a truth that they should be taken away from people. Simple, really.

 

[juvenissun]

If you accept subjective, relative truth of this kind, do you see objective truth as a different kind of thing? By objective truth, I mean things that are true for everyone. Are objective truths always linked to an unchallenged authority? I'm thinking particularly of truths about the physical world. And if the real world itself is said to be an unchallenged authority (or, perhaps, our experience of it), then what happens if here is a contradiction between, say, Chairman Mao's pronouncements, and real-world experience? If Mao says everyone can live and work on a cup of rice a week, but only people who have more than one cup actually survive, is what Mao says still true?
It seems to me that truth, for a humanist, will be what they believe, whether that is that humans are god (really? I don't think Feuerbach meant it literally) or whatever. "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" isn't a truth for anyone, it's an imperative. The corresponding truth would be, "It is wrong to kill (murder)". As far as I know, all established human cultures see murder as wrong - where they differ is in the definition of murder, i.e. the rules for justifiable vs unjustifiable killing.

You are an atheist, which is, to me, another name for humanist. So whatever you take as a truth, I can always argue against it with a sound logic and reasoning. I might be on the side of minority. But you have to admit that your truth must be based on statistics. To you, it is not possible to have a 100% truth.

For example, a murder for the benefit of the majority is not a crime, but is a heroic action.