What Is Truth?

Some people—typically theists and realists—argue that there are 'Absolute Truths' (or Universals), metaphysical properties that exist independently of the things that manifest them. Competing views that contrast with realism, like nominalism, materialism, naturalism, pragmatism, and anti-realism, hold that universals do not 'exist' at all, that they are nothing more than words used to describe specific objects and do not name separate existing things (whether agents or agencies) outside the mind.

For centuries realists and anti-realists have been in debate concerning the nature of truth, and such discussions are still going on today. Is truth subjective or objective? Relative or absolute? Situational or universal? Correspondent or consensual? Nothing more than semantics and story-telling or something else indepentent of language, words, descriptions, and measurements?

However one wishes to argue the 'nature' of truth, the bottom line is that all such arguments are dependent on language. Unlike a tree or a dog or oxygen or a night of passionate love-making, truth requires language to exist. I can go my entire life without ever saying, hearing, writing, or reading a single word and still have a full and productive existence—I can work, play, go hunting and gathering—but to consider whether something is true or not is fully dependent upon the use of language, symbols, statements. If truth is impossible to discern without using words, how can 'truth' as some 'universal' agency exist outside of words?

I assert that there are two truths, one which is natural, innate, and precedes the use of language, the other which is synthetic, artificial, and unnatural, wholly dependent on language to exist.

The first truth, Natural Truth, is independent of all words (whether said, heard, read, or written) and unforced. To know this truth you merely have to interact with your environment, respond to your surroundings, recognize the primacy of life using your five senses. To know whether something is true isn't a matter of question or discussion or contention or being told, but what you experience naturally in the 'real world'. The measuring rod of Natural Truth, then, is to consider that whatever you perceive as 'reality' stands up to experience external of language (whether said, heard, read, or written) and doesn't depend on language to make itself known. An example of a Natural Truth would be anything you 'know' completely independent of words: the sun on your face, the color and taste of an apple, the touch of a loved one, the smell of burning leaves, rain, warmth, cold, exhaustion. All these things are 'true' naturally. Doubt or suspicion are never options. And because they aren't dependent on words, Natural Truths are easy to test. They're all around you, in you, you're part and parcel of the same local experience.

The second truth, Synthetic Truth, is dependent upon words and forced by argument. Synthetic truth cannot be experienced by directly interacting with your environment, responding to your surroundings, empirically recognized using your five senses. Synthetic truths exist only in the employment of language, in the stringing together of words, through internalized rhetoric, deixis, and semantics. Synthetic truths sound reasonable because the words used to describe them follow the patterns of syntax, grammar, and phrase structure rules and appear to correspond to the world around us. We typically use Synthetic truths to describe our experiences of Natural truths, to synthesize our experiences of the 'natural world' using the abstraction of words. An example of a Synthetic Truth would be using language to describe a Natural Truth: 'The sun is hot', ''The apple is red', 'Your hands are soft', 'Someone is burning leaves', 'It's really raining', 'I'm warm', 'It's cold', ''The boy looks tired'.

Now there is another element that is derived initially from the experiences of Natural Truth but one that is actually untrue. This is the Synthetic Falsehood. A Synthetic Falsehood is a claim made that 'could' pass for a Synthetic Truth (if indeed it was true) but is, in fact, not true. A Synthetic Falsehood is not illogical nor does it contradict Natural Truths potentially experienced in the 'real word' but is made up false elements given the reality at hand. An example of a Synthetic Falsehood would be to pick up a red apple and declare "This apple is green." While it is true that green apples exist in the real world, and red apples exist in the real world, because you said the red apple you are holding is green, you have made a Synthetic Falsehood. A Synthetic Falsehood could just as easily have been a Synthetic Truth had you, in fact, been holding a green apple. Now, if you had been holding a red apple but made the claim "This is a fairy's egg," this is not a Synthetic Falsehood because your statement could never correspond to a Natural Truth given a different set of circumstances (in other words, because there are no fairies in the 'real world', you could never pick up a fairy's egg to make your previous statement true). Synthetic Falsehoods must be able to correspond to Natural Truths given a different set up circumstances ("I didn't drink all the milk; I didn't steal the money; I didn't run that red light"). Statements made that have no corresponding potential to Natural Truths are another thing entirely.

This brings us to our fourth element, the Synthetic Statement. Synthetic Statements are neither true nor false because the things they describe or claim are nowhere to be found in the 'natural' world. They do not exist in our experience of 'reality' so are neither Synthetic Truths, Synthetic Falsehoods, or Natural Truths. Synthetic Statements, therefore, are inherently meaningless. Since Synthetic Statements subscribe to the same patterns of language used by Synthetic Truths (i.e., syntax, grammar, and phrase structure rules), it's easy to confuse a Synthetic Statement for a Synthetic Truth if one isn't careful to apply critical thinking in his-or-her assessments. Unless critical thinking is conscientiously exercised, Synthetic Statements can quickly ensnare the unsuspecting, the uneducated, the naïve, because Synthetic Statements seem to make sense (i.e., they are not gibberish and conform to the linguistic rules of nouns, verbs, direct objects, etc). An example of Synthetic Statements would be using language to define terms or describe things we do not know from the natural world or which do not coincide with what we do know about the natural world: Ghosts, Aliens, Monsters, Magic, Levitation, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, Channeling, Bioharmonics, Astrology, Astral Projection, Flying Carpets, Angels, Devils, Satan, God, Heaven, Hell, Life After Death, Reincarnation, etc.

Perhaps these four elements—Natural Truths, Synthetic Truths, Synthetic Falsehoods, and Synthetic Statements—are best explained by a couple of comparison examples:

Now some dogmatic people might be put off because I'm using verses from the Bible (Genesis 3:1, John 3:16) as examples of Synthetic Statements (neither Natural Truths, Synthetic Truths, or Synthetic Falsehoods, and therefore meaningless), but employing a bit of critical thinking will reveal this is precisely what they are:

They are not Natural Truths because none of us have experienced the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) as occurrences separate from the use of language (whether said, heard, read, or written). In fact, it is only through words that we would ever consider these to be occurrences at all.
They are not Synthetic Truths because the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) do not correspond to anything we discern from the natural world. In fact, it is only because of these words that we consider them at all and for no other reason.
They are not Synthetic Falsehoods because the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) do not correspond to anything we might discern from the natural world. In fact, it is only because of words that we consider them at all and the words do not correspond to anything we actually know.
They are Synthetic Statements becauses the elements described are inherently meaningless. Why? Because the terms talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death are not represented by elements in the natural world nor are they synthetic descriptions of elements occurring in the natural world. Because no one has any 'real world' experience with talking serpents, God, his Son, or life-after-death these words only derive their connotations by referencing other words and are therefore meaningless. How? Because the term 'God' can mean anything you want it to mean depending on the set of words you use for reference. If a term can mean anything it is essentially meaningless because there is no way to define it according to corresponding natural facts. In short, saying 'God is Love' or 'Xyclovin is Love' amount to exactly the same thing. Beyond the artifice of words know one knows who or what a 'Xyclovin' is and the same holds for 'God'.

So, What Is Truth? For me 'truth' is everything I can know that doesn't require words (whether said, heard, read, or written) to communicate its 'truth', argue its 'truth', to defend its 'truth', to know its 'truth'.

Simply put, if I remove from my "true-or-false meter" everything I was ever told or read that required language to make itself known—things like talking serpents and angels and life-after-death and seventy-two virgins—whatever I have left over is 'truth'. Of course this also removes things like abstract mathematics, ancient histories, theories of cosmology and physics and evolution, most textbooks, even the information contained in this web site. And that's precisely the point! Truth is not something that requires you to first hear it or read it. If that is a requirement of the 'truth' you're claiming, you can rest assured that it isn't the truth. If you need to point to words in a book to know what is and isn't the 'truth' you are deceiving yourself and squandering life.

All the rest is artificial. Made up. Somebody else's opinion, interpretation, imagination, delusion. All the rest is the artifice of words.

There's an old Zen saying to describe the nature of 'truth' (or coming to 'enlightenment' etc):


When someone sincerely agrees with an assertion he or she is claiming that it is true, but 'truth'—whatever 'truth' may be—is certainly more than agreement and assertion. Or is it? For centuries philosophers have wrestled with questions concerning the nature of truth, the word 'truth', even the possibility of truth—therefore falsity too—being nothing more than a subset of language (i.e., without relying on words for description the notions of 'true' or 'false' are impossible to measure). Are terms like 'truth', 'true', 'false', 'lies', etc., all products of the artifice of words? Without depending on language for description, definition, or assertive claims, how can truth be recognized or acknowledged? Without speaking aloud, or listening, or referencing a document, how can truth be determined or known? Does 'truth', 'true', and 'false' even exist outside the synthetic realm of language?
Some people—typically theists and realists—argue that there are 'Absolute Truths' (or Universals), metaphysical properties that exist independently of the things that manifest them. Competing views that contrast with realism, like nominalism, materialism, naturalism, pragmatism, and anti-realism, hold that universals do not 'exist' at all, that they are nothing more than words used to describe specific objects and do not name separate existing things (whether agents or agencies) outside the mind. For centuries realists and anti-realists have been in debate concerning the nature of truth, and such discussions are still going on today. Is truth subjective or objective? Relative or absolute? Situational or universal? Correspondent or consensual? Nothing more than semantics and story-telling or something else indepentent of language, words, descriptions, and measurements? However one wishes to argue the 'nature' of truth, the bottom line is that all such arguments are dependent on language. Unlike a tree or a dog or oxygen or a night of passionate love-making, truth requires language to exist. I can go my entire life without ever saying, hearing, writing, or reading a single word and still have a full and productive existence—I can work, play, go hunting and gathering—but to consider whether something is true or not is fully dependent upon the use of language, symbols, statements. If truth is impossible to discern without using words, how can 'truth' as some 'universal' agency exist outside of words? I assert that there are two truths, one which is natural, innate, and precedes the use of language, the other which is synthetic, artificial, and unnatural, wholly dependent on language to exist. The first truth, Natural Truth, is independent of all words (whether said, heard, read, or written) and unforced. To know this truth you merely have to interact with your environment, respond to your surroundings, recognize the primacy of life using your five senses. To know whether something is true isn't a matter of question or discussion or contention or being told, but what you experience naturally in the 'real world'. The measuring rod of Natural Truth, then, is to consider that whatever you perceive as 'reality' stands up to experience external of language (whether said, heard, read, or written) and doesn't depend on language to make itself known. An example of a Natural Truth would be anything you 'know' completely independent of words: the sun on your face, the color and taste of an apple, the touch of a loved one, the smell of burning leaves, rain, warmth, cold, exhaustion. All these things are 'true' naturally. Doubt or suspicion are never options. And because they aren't dependent on words, Natural Truths are easy to test. They're all around you, in you, you're part and parcel of the same local experience. The second truth, Synthetic Truth, is dependent upon words and forced by argument. Synthetic truth cannot be experienced by directly interacting with your environment, responding to your surroundings, empirically recognized using your five senses. Synthetic truths exist only in the employment of language, in the stringing together of words, through internalized rhetoric, deixis, and semantics. Synthetic truths sound reasonable because the words used to describe them follow the patterns of syntax, grammar, and phrase structure rules and appear to correspond to the world around us. We typically use Synthetic truths to describe our experiences of Natural truths, to synthesize our experiences of the 'natural world' using the abstraction of words. An example of a Synthetic Truth would be using language to describe a Natural Truth: 'The sun is hot', ''The apple is red', 'Your hands are soft', 'Someone is burning leaves', 'It's really raining', 'I'm warm', 'It's cold', ''The boy looks tired'. Now there is another element that is derived initially from the experiences of Natural Truth but one that is actually untrue. This is the Synthetic Falsehood. A Synthetic Falsehood is a claim made that 'could' pass for a Synthetic Truth (if indeed it was true) but is, in fact, not true. A Synthetic Falsehood is not illogical nor does it contradict Natural Truths potentially experienced in the 'real word' but is made up false elements given the reality at hand. An example of a Synthetic Falsehood would be to pick up a red apple and declare "This apple is green." While it is true that green apples exist in the real world, and red apples exist in the real world, because you said the red apple you are holding is green, you have made a Synthetic Falsehood. A Synthetic Falsehood could just as easily have been a Synthetic Truth had you, in fact, been holding a green apple. Now, if you had been holding a red apple but made the claim "This is a fairy's egg," this is not a Synthetic Falsehood because your statement could never correspond to a Natural Truth given a different set of circumstances (in other words, because there are no fairies in the 'real world', you could never pick up a fairy's egg to make your previous statement true). Synthetic Falsehoods must be able to correspond to Natural Truths given a different set up circumstances ("I didn't drink all the milk; I didn't steal the money; I didn't run that red light"). Statements made that have no corresponding potential to Natural Truths are another thing entirely. This brings us to our fourth element, the Synthetic Statement. Synthetic Statements are neither true nor false because the things they describe or claim are nowhere to be found in the 'natural' world. They do not exist in our experience of 'reality' so are neither Synthetic Truths, Synthetic Falsehoods, or Natural Truths. Synthetic Statements, therefore, are inherently meaningless. Since Synthetic Statements subscribe to the same patterns of language used by Synthetic Truths (i.e., syntax, grammar, and phrase structure rules), it's easy to confuse a Synthetic Statement for a Synthetic Truth if one isn't careful to apply critical thinking in his-or-her assessments. Unless critical thinking is conscientiously exercised, Synthetic Statements can quickly ensnare the unsuspecting, the uneducated, the naïve, because Synthetic Statements seem to make sense (i.e., they are not gibberish and conform to the linguistic rules of nouns, verbs, direct objects, etc). An example of Synthetic Statements would be using language to define terms or describe things we do not know from the natural world or which do not coincide with what we do know about the natural world: Ghosts, Aliens, Monsters, Magic, Levitation, Clairvoyance, Telepathy, Channeling, Bioharmonics, Astrology, Astral Projection, Flying Carpets, Angels, Devils, Satan, God, Heaven, Hell, Life After Death, Reincarnation, etc. Perhaps these four elements—Natural Truths, Synthetic Truths, Synthetic Falsehoods, and Synthetic Statements—are best explained by a couple of comparison examples: Natural Truth Taking a bite of a crisp apple and tasting its sweetness. Synthetic Truth Saying "The red apple is crisp and sweet. Synthetic Falsehood You're holding a red apple and say "Would you like a bite of my banana?" Synthetic Statement Now the serpent was the most cunning of all the animals that the LORD God had made. The serpent asked the woman, "Did God really tell you not to eat from any of the trees in the garden?" Or: Natural Truth Feeling your heart swell with love for your child. Synthetic Truth Writing in your diary "I love my child." Synthetic Falsehood Writing in your diary "I love my grandchild" when you have no grandchildren. Synthetic Statement For God so loved the world he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. Now some dogmatic people might be put off because I'm using verses from the Bible (Genesis 3:1, John 3:16) as examples of Synthetic Statements (neither Natural Truths, Synthetic Truths, or Synthetic Falsehoods, and therefore meaningless), but employing a bit of critical thinking will reveal this is precisely what they are: They are not Natural Truths because none of us have experienced the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) as occurrences separate from the use of language (whether said, heard, read, or written). In fact, it is only through words that we would ever consider these to be occurrences at all. They are not Synthetic Truths because the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) do not correspond to anything we discern from the natural world. In fact, it is only because of these words that we consider them at all and for no other reason. They are not Synthetic Falsehoods because the elements described (i.e., talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death) do not correspond to anything we might discern from the natural world. In fact, it is only because of words that we consider them at all and the words do not correspond to anything we actually know. They are Synthetic Statements becauses the elements described are inherently meaningless. Why? Because the terms talking serpents, God giving his Son, life-after-death are not represented by elements in the natural world nor are they synthetic descriptions of elements occurring in the natural world. Because no one has any 'real world' experience with talking serpents, God, his Son, or life-after-death these words only derive their connotations by referencing other words and are therefore meaningless. How? Because the term 'God' can mean anything you want it to mean depending on the set of words you use for reference. If a term can mean anything it is essentially meaningless because there is no way to define it according to corresponding natural facts. In short, saying 'God is Love' or 'Xyclovin is Love' amount to exactly the same thing. Beyond the artifice of words know one knows who or what a 'Xyclovin' is and the same holds for 'God'. So, What Is Truth? For me 'truth' is everything I can know that doesn't require words (whether said, heard, read, or written) to communicate its 'truth', argue its 'truth', to defend its 'truth', to know its 'truth'. Simply put, if I remove from my "true-or-false meter" everything I was ever told or read that required language to make itself known—things like talking serpents and angels and life-after-death and seventy-two virgins—whatever I have left over is 'truth'. Of course this also removes things like abstract mathematics, ancient histories, theories of cosmology and physics and evolution, most textbooks, even the information contained in this web site. And that's precisely the point! Truth is not something that requires you to first hear it or read it. If that is a requirement of the 'truth' you're claiming, you can rest assured that it isn't the truth. If you need to point to words in a book to know what is and isn't the 'truth' you are deceiving yourself and squandering life. Truth is what remains when all the language has been removed. So? What do you really know that doesn't depend on words? Whatever that is, that's the truth. All the rest is artificial. Made up. Somebody else's opinion, interpretation, imagination, delusion. All the rest is the artifice of words. Even this web site. There's an old Zen saying to describe the nature of 'truth' (or coming to 'enlightenment' etc): You use a thorn to remove a thorn, then you throw both away The information offered in this web site is simply this second thorn.
The Nature of Truth: Classic and Contemporary Perspectives by Michael P. Lynch Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction by Richard L. Kirkham Truth: A Guide by Simon Blackburn Truth (Oxford Readings in Philosophy) by Simon Blackburn Understanding Truth by Scott Soames The Coherence of Theory of Truth by Nicholas Rescher Truth and Justification by Jürgen Habermas A Prosentential Theory of Truth by Dorothy Grover Truth and the Absence of Fact by Hartry Field Truth and Other Enigmas by Michael Dummett Reason, Truth and History by Hilary Putnam The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and Other Essays by Hilary Putnam Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers (Philosophical Papers, Vol 1) by Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature by Richard Rorty Realism and Truth by Michael Devitt A Realist Conception of Truth by William P. Alston Realism and Antirealism by William P. Alston Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth by Stathis Psillos The Way, the Truth, and the Lies by Roy A. Teel Jr Truth (Wikipedia) Epistemic Theories of Truth (Wikipedia) Unity of the Proposition (Wikipedia) Truth (IEP) The Correspondence Theory of Truth (SEP) The Coherence Theory of Truth (SEP) The Deflationary Theory of Truth (SEP) The Identity Theory of Truth (SEP) The Revision Theory of Truth (SEP) Alfred Tarski's Truth Definitions (SEP) Gottlob Frege (SEP) Gottlob Frege (IEP) Frege and Language (IEP) Frege Site (UC Berkeley) Gottlob Frege on Being, Existence, and Truth George Edward Moore (SEP) Bertrand Russell (SEP) Jürgen Habermas (Wikipedia) Michael Dummett (IEP) What Is Truth? (University Oxford) An Introduction to Truth (Paul Newall) Excerpts: The Nature of Truth by Harold Joachim Excerpts: Principals of Mathematics by Bertrand Russell The Semantic Conception of Truth And The Foundations of Semantics (Alfred Tarski) Ontology: A Resource Guide for Philosophers