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

What IS truth? That's one of the big philosophical questions! In this video, I discuss the leading philosophical theories of truth.

This is part of a series of videos on TRUTH, with more to be uploaded in March 2020.

Get in touch on Social media!

#truth #philosophy

Music and graphics © Attic Philosophy 2020

[fredkyowa]

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

[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.

[crazyartss]

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

[jestaman]

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!

[GFumet]

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

[ETAZMT]

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

[sarahrussell]

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

[JoshKings-trvc]

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.

[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?

[chrisparker]

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

[todd]

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

[socrates]

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.

[randomvide]

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

[cjstevens]

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.

[EmC-py]

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

[water]

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

[simonadecortis]

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

[ericb]

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.

[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.

[raydencreed]

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