| Revision as of 07:56, 10 July 2005 editBanno (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users7,532 edits →Too feeble???← Previous edit | Revision as of 08:48, 10 July 2005 edit undo67.182.157.6 (talk)No edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| Why is True auto redirecting to Truth? | |||
| Might want a disambigous page w/ also links to True in terms of other things, (I came looking for Computer Science related info) --] 18:17, 11 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ⚫ | :Read the article ]. ... ] 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | ||
| == Redirect == | |||
| Been there, done that, got the T shirt, and I have questions about it. 8^) | |||
| The definition given here is far too feeble. ... ] 21:00, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| How about clearing up something for me today, Banno, concerning that article? How can you presume to write about TRUTH (meaning a statement that is true) without first stipulating to the meaning of the more basic term, TRUE (in general usage generally taken to mean "In accord with the actual state of affairs")? Would it be possible for one to explain the term, 'fourth' to a visitor from another planet without first explaining the more basic term, 'four'? | |||
| == Too feeble??? == | |||
| Don't be silly. An unambiguous mention of the actual meaning of the term, 'true' -- in accord with the actual state of affairs in any particular case -- is needed to give it the ] to float above the sea of theist ] in ]. | |||
| ⚫ | : |
||
| :The corespondence theory is one amongst many | |||
| This is not about any THEORY ('might be' proposition), sir. | |||
| Any statement about the actual state of affairs in any particular case is true if and only if it is in accord with the actual state of affairs in that particular case. This is not just a point of view, or a theory, it is the definition of the term, 'true'. What are you, ]? | |||
| :Read the article ]. Take a look at the archive. You are proposing one definition (corespondence) among many. That is POV. And I do not yet have a knighthood. ] 07:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:48, 10 July 2005
Been there, done that, got the T shirt, and I have questions about it. 8^)
How about clearing up something for me today, Banno, concerning that article? How can you presume to write about TRUTH (meaning a statement that is true) without first stipulating to the meaning of the more basic term, TRUE (in general usage generally taken to mean "In accord with the actual state of affairs")? Would it be possible for one to explain the term, 'fourth' to a visitor from another planet without first explaining the more basic term, 'four'?