View source for Truth

{{Short description|Being in accord with fact or reality}}
{{redirect|The truth|other uses of "The truth"|The Truth (disambiguation)|other uses of "Truth"|Truth (disambiguation)}}

{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{pp-move}}
{{Epistemology sidebar}}'''Truth''' or '''verity''' is the [[Property (philosophy)|property]] of being in accord with [[fact]] or [[reality]].<ref name = Merriam-Webster-def>Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, [http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth truth] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229155658/http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth |date=2009-12-29 }}, 2005</ref> In everyday language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise correspond to it, such as [[belief]]s, [[proposition]]s, and [[declarative sentence]]s.<ref name="SEP Truth">{{cite web |title=Truth |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=29 June 2020 |archive-date=20 January 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220120210351/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Truth is usually held to be the opposite of [[false statement]]. The [[concept]] of truth is discussed and debated in various contexts, including [[philosophy]], [[art]], [[theology]], [[law]], and [[science]]. Most human activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being a subject of discussion, including [[journalism]] and everyday life. Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself.<ref name="SEP Truth"/> Most commonly, truth is viewed as the correspondence of [[language]] or [[thought]] to a mind-independent world. This is called the [[correspondence theory of truth]].

Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians.<ref name="SEP Truth"/><ref name=PUP32014>{{cite book|author1=Alexis G. Burgess and John P. Burgess|title=Truth|year=2011|publisher=Princeton University Press|isbn=978-0-691-14401-6|edition=1st|url=http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9460.html|access-date=October 4, 2014|format=hardcover|quote=a concise introduction to current philosophical debates about truth|archive-date=October 6, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141006131358/http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9460.html|url-status=live}}</ref> There are many different questions about the nature of truth which are still the subject of contemporary debates. These include the question of defining truth; whether it is even possible to give an informative definition of truth; identifying things as [[truth-bearer]]s capable of being true or false; if truth and falsehood are [[Principle of bivalence|bivalent]], or if there are other truth values; identifying the [[criteria of truth]] that allow us to identify it and to distinguish it from falsehood; the role that truth plays in constituting [[knowledge]]; and, if truth is always [[Universality (philosophy)|absolute]] or if it can be [[knowledge relativity|relative]] to one's perspective.

==Definition and etymology==
{{Further|Veritas|Aletheia|Tryggvi|category=|Page 4=Satya|selfref=}}
{{anchor|treowe}}
The English word ''[[:wikt:truth|truth]]'' is derived from [[Old English]] ''tríewþ, tréowþ, trýwþ'', [[Middle English]] ''trewþe'', cognate to [[Old High German]] ''triuwida'', [[Old Norse]] ''tryggð''. Like ''troth'', it is a ''[[:wikt:-th|-th]]'' nominalisation of the adjective ''true'' (Old English ''tréowe'').

The English word ''[[:wikt:true|true]]'' is from Old English ([[West Sexaon dialect (Old English)|West Saxon]]) ''(ge)tríewe, [[:wikt:treowe|tréowe]]'', cognate to [[Old Saxon]] ''(gi)trûui'', [[Old High German]] ''(ga)triuwu'' ([[Modern German]] ''treu'' "faithful"), [[Old Norse]] ''tryggr'', [[Gothic language|Gothic]] ''triggws'',<ref>see [[Holtzmann's law]] for the ''-ww-'' : ''-gg-'' alternation.</ref> all from a [[Proto-Germanic]] ''*trewwj-'' "having [[good faith]]", perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree", on the notion of "steadfast as an oak" (e.g., Sanskrit ''[[:wikt:दारु#Sanskrit|dā́ru]]'' "(piece of) wood").<ref name="Truth from Online Etymology">{{cite web|last=Etymology|first=Online|title=Online Etymology|url=http://www.etymonline.com/|access-date=2013-11-27|archive-date=2007-07-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070713125946/http://www.etymonline.com/|url-status=live}}</ref>
Old Norse ''{{lang|is|trú}}'', "faith, word of honour; religious faith, belief"<ref name=":0">''[http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h442.php A Concise Dictionary of Old Icelandic] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070930210807/http://www.northvegr.org/zoega/h442.php |date=2007-09-30 }}'', Geir T. Zoëga (1910), Northvegr.org</ref> (archaic English ''[[:wikt:troth|troth]]'' "loyalty, [[honesty]], good faith", compare ''{{lang|is|[[wikt:Ásatrú|Ásatrú]]}}'').

Thus, "truth" involves both the quality of "faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, sincerity, veracity",<ref>[[OED]] on ''true'' has "Steadfast in adherence to a commander or friend, to a principle or cause, to one's promises, faith, etc.; firm in allegiance; faithful, loyal, constant, trusty; honest, honourable, upright, virtuous, trustworthy; free from deceit, sincere, truthful" besides "Conformity with fact; agreement with reality; accuracy, correctness, verity; Consistent with fact; agreeing with the reality; representing the thing as it is; real, genuine; rightly answering to the description; properly so called; not counterfeit, spurious, or imaginary."</ref> and that of "agreement with [[fact]] or [[reality]]", in Anglo-Saxon expressed by ''[[:wikt:sōþ|sōþ]]'' (Modern English ''[[:wikt:sooth|sooth]]'').

All Germanic languages besides English have introduced a terminological distinction between truth "fidelity" and truth "factuality". To express "factuality", [[North Germanic languages|North Germanic]] opted for nouns derived from ''sanna'' "to assert, affirm", while continental [[West Germanic languages|West Germanic]] (German and Dutch) opted for continuations of ''wâra'' "faith, trust, pact" (cognate to Slavic ''věra'' "(religious) faith", but influenced by Latin ''[[veritas|verus]]''). [[Romance language]]s use terms following the Latin ''[[veritas]]'', while the Greek ''[[aletheia]]'', Russian ''[[:wikt:pravda|pravda]]'', South Slavic ''istina'' and Sanskrit ''[[Sat (Sanskrit)|sat]]'' (related to English ''sooth'' and North Germanic ''sanna'') have separate etymological origins.

In some modern contexts, the word "truth" is used to refer to fidelity to an original or standard. It can also be used in the context of being "true to oneself" in the sense of acting with [[authenticity (philosophy)|authenticity]].<ref name = Merriam-Webster-def/>

==Major theories<!-- 'Philosophy of truth', 'Theory of truth', 'Theories of truth', and 'Truth theory' redirect here. Please do not alter the title of the section without also fixing the redirect pages. -->==
{{redirect|Theories of truth|the book|Theories of Truth}}

[[File:Statue of Truth.jpg|thumb|right|[[Walter Seymour Allward]]'s ''Veritas'' (Truth) outside [[Supreme Court of Canada]], [[Ottawa, Ontario]] [[Canada]]]]

The question of what is a proper basis for deciding how words, symbols, ideas and beliefs may properly be considered true, whether by a single person or an entire society, is dealt with by the five most prevalent substantive '''theories of truth'''<!--boldface per WP:R#PLA--> listed below. Each presents perspectives that are widely shared by published scholars.<ref name="EPT">[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Supp., "Truth", auth: Michael Williams, pp. 572–73 (Macmillan, 1996)</ref><ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.</ref><ref name=":1">{{cite book |editor1-last=Hale |editor1-first=Bob |editor2-last=Wright |editor2-first=Crispin |year=1999 |chapter=A Companion to the Philosophy of Language |chapter-url= |location= |publisher= |pages=309–30 |doi=10.1111/b.9780631213260.1999.00015.x |doi-broken-date=31 January 2024 |isbn=978-0-631-21326-0 }}</ref>

Theories other than the most prevalent substantive theories are also discussed. According to a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views which was carried out in November 2009 (taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students) 45% of respondents accept or lean towards correspondence theories, 21% accept or lean towards deflationary theories and 14% [[Epistemic theories of truth|epistemic theories]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium |title=The PhilPapers Surveys – Preliminary Survey results |website=The PhilPapers Surveys |publisher=Philpapers.org |access-date=2012-05-27 |archive-date=2012-03-20 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120320074244/http://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl?affil=All+respondents&areas0=0&areas_max=1&grain=medium |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Substantive===
====Correspondence====
{{Main|Correspondence theory of truth}}
Correspondence theories emphasize that true beliefs and true statements correspond to the actual state of affairs.<ref name=":2">[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth.: [[Arthur N. Prior]], p. 223 (Macmillan, 1969). Prior uses [[Bertrand Russell]]'s wording in defining correspondence theory. According to Prior, Russell was substantially responsible for helping to make correspondence theory widely known under this name.</ref> This type of theory stresses a relationship between thoughts or statements on one hand, and things or objects on the other. It is a traditional model tracing its origins to [[ancient Greece|ancient Greek]] philosophers such as [[Socrates]], [[Plato]], and [[Aristotle]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth.: Arthur N. Prior, pp. 223–24 (Macmillan, 1969).</ref> This class of theories holds that the truth or the falsity of a representation is determined in principle entirely by how it relates to "things" according to whether it accurately describes those "things". A classic example of correspondence theory is the statement by the thirteenth century philosopher and theologian [[Thomas Aquinas]]: "[[Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus|''Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus'']]" ("Truth is the adequation of things and [[intellect]]"), which Aquinas attributed to the ninth century [[Neoplatonist]] [[Isaac Israeli ben Solomon|Isaac Israeli]].<ref name=":3">[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol. 2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth.: Arthur N. Prior, Macmillan, 1969, p. 224.</ref><ref>[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191031140950/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ |date=2019-10-31 }}.</ref><ref name=":4">Thomas Aquinas, ''[[Summa Theologiae]]'', I. Q.16, A.2 arg. 2.</ref> Aquinas also restated the theory as: "A judgment is said to be true when it conforms to the external reality".<ref name=":5">[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence "Correspondence Theory of Truth", in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191031140950/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ |date=2019-10-31 }} (citing ''De Veritate'' Q.1, A.1–3 and ''[[Summa Theologiae]]'', I. Q.16).</ref>

Correspondence theory centres heavily around the assumption that truth is a matter of accurately copying what is known as "[[objective reality]]" and then representing it in thoughts, words, and other symbols.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Bradley, F.H., "On Truth and Copying", in Blackburn, ''et al.'' (eds., 1999),''Truth'', 31–45.</ref> Many modern theorists have stated that this ideal cannot be achieved without analysing additional factors.<ref name=EPT/><ref name=":6">[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, pp. 223 ''ff''. Macmillan, 1969. See especially, section on "Moore's Correspondence Theory", 225–26, "Russell's Correspondence Theory", 226–27, "Remsey and Later Wittgenstein", 228–29, "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230–31.</ref> For example, language plays a role in that all languages have words to represent concepts that are virtually undefined in other languages. The [[German language|German]] word ''[[Zeitgeist]]'' is one such example: one who speaks or understands the language may "know" what it means, but any translation of the word apparently fails to accurately capture its full meaning (this is a problem with many abstract words, especially those derived in [[agglutinative languages]]). Thus, some words add an additional parameter to the construction of an accurate [[truth predicate]]. Among the philosophers who grappled with this problem is [[Alfred Tarski]], whose [[semantic theory of truth|semantic theory]] is summarized further on.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Correspondence Theory of Truth", auth: Arthur N. Prior, pp. 223 ''ff''. Macmillan, 1969. See the section on "Tarski's Semantic Theory", 230–31.</ref>

Proponents of several of the theories below have gone further to assert that there are yet other issues necessary to the analysis, such as interpersonal power struggles, community interactions, personal biases, and other factors involved in deciding what is seen as truth.

====Coherence====
{{Main|Coherence theory of truth}}

For coherence theories in general, truth requires a proper fit of elements within a whole system. Very often, however, coherence is taken to imply something more than simple logical consistency; often there is a demand that the propositions in a coherent system lend mutual inferential support to each other. So, for example, the completeness and comprehensiveness of the underlying set of concepts is a critical factor in judging the validity and usefulness of a coherent system.<ref>[[Immanuel Kant]], for instance, assembled a controversial but quite coherent system in the early 19th century, whose validity and usefulness continues to be debated even today. Similarly, the systems of [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]] and [[Spinoza]] are characteristic systems that are internally coherent but controversial in terms of their utility and validity.</ref> A pervasive tenet of coherence theories is the idea that truth is primarily a property of whole systems of propositions, and can be ascribed to individual propositions only according to their coherence with the whole. Among the assortment of perspectives commonly regarded as coherence theory, theorists differ on the question of whether coherence entails many possible true systems of thought or only a single absolute system.

Some variants of coherence theory are claimed to describe the essential and intrinsic properties of [[formal system]]s in logic and mathematics.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: [[Alan R. White]], pp. 130–31 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref> However, formal reasoners are content to contemplate [[independence (mathematical logic)|axiomatically independent]] and sometimes mutually contradictory systems side by side, for example, the various [[noneuclidean geometry|alternative geometries]]. On the whole, coherence theories have been rejected for lacking justification in their application to other areas of truth, especially with respect to assertions about the [[Natural environment|natural world]], [[empirical]] data in general, assertions about practical matters of psychology and society, especially when used without support from the other major theories of truth.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, pp. 131–33, ''see'' esp., section on "Epistemological assumptions" (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>

Coherence theories distinguish the thought of [[rationalism|rationalist]] philosophers, particularly of [[Baruch Spinoza]], [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]], and [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel]], along with the British philosopher [[F. H. Bradley]].<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Coherence Theory of Truth", auth: Alan R. White, p. 130</ref> They have found a resurgence also among several proponents of [[logical positivism]], notably [[Otto Neurath]] and [[Carl Hempel]].

====Pragmatic====
{{Main|Pragmatic theory of truth}}

The three most influential forms of the ''pragmatic theory of truth'' were introduced around the turn of the 20th century by [[Charles Sanders Peirce]], [[William James]], and [[John Dewey]]. Although there are wide differences in viewpoint among these and other proponents of pragmatic theory, they hold in common that truth is verified and confirmed by the results of putting one's concepts into practice.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol. 5, "Pragmatic Theory of Truth", 427 (Macmillan, 1969).</ref>

[[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce]] defines truth as follows: "Truth is that concordance of an abstract statement with the ideal limit towards which endless investigation would tend to bring scientific belief, which concordance the abstract statement may possess by virtue of the confession of its inaccuracy and one-sidedness, and this confession is an essential ingredient of truth."<ref name="Peirce Truth and Falsity">Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp. 716–20 in [[James Mark Baldwin]], ed., ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', v. 2. Peirce's section is entitled "''Logical''", beginning on p. 718, column 1, and ending on p. 720 with the initials "(C.S.P.)", see Google Books [https://archive.org/details/beginningthirdr00randgoog/page/n748 <!-- pg=718 --> Eprint]. Reprinted, ''[[Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography#CP|Collected Papers]]'' v. 5, pp. 565–73.</ref> This statement stresses Peirce's view that ideas of approximation, incompleteness, and partiality, what he describes elsewhere as ''[[fallibilism]]'' and "reference to the future", are essential to a proper conception of truth. Although Peirce uses words like ''concordance'' and ''correspondence'' to describe one aspect of the pragmatic [[sign relation]], he is also quite explicit in saying that definitions of truth based on mere correspondence are no more than ''nominal'' definitions, which he accords a lower status than ''real'' definitions.

[[William James]]'s version of pragmatic theory, while complex, is often summarized by his statement that "the 'true' is only the expedient in our way of thinking, just as the 'right' is only the expedient in our way of behaving."<ref name=WJP>James, William, ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism','' (1909).</ref> By this, James meant that truth is a ''quality'', the value of which is confirmed by its effectiveness when applying concepts to practice (thus, "pragmatic").

[[John Dewey]], less broadly than James but more broadly than Peirce, held that [[inquiry]], whether scientific, technical, sociological, philosophical, or cultural, is self-corrective over time ''if'' openly submitted for testing by a community of inquirers in order to clarify, justify, refine, and/or refute proposed truths.<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol.2, "Dewey, John", auth [[Richard J. Bernstein]], p. 383 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>

Though not widely known, a new variation of the pragmatic theory was defined and wielded successfully from the 20th century forward. Defined and named by [[William Ernest Hocking]], this variation is known as "negative pragmatism". Essentially, what works may or may not be true, but what fails cannot be true because the truth always works.<ref>Sahakian, W.S. & Sahakian, M.L., Ideas of the Great Philosophers, New York: Barnes & Noble, 1966, {{LCCN|66-23155}}</ref> Philosopher of science [[Richard Feynman]] also subscribed to it: "We never are definitely right, we can only be sure we are wrong."<ref name="FeynmanThe">Feynman, The Character of Physical Law, New York: Random House, 1994, 978-0-679-60127-2.</ref> This approach incorporates many of the ideas from Peirce, James, and Dewey. For Peirce, the idea of "endless investigation would tend to bring about scientific belief" fits negative pragmatism in that a negative pragmatist would never stop testing. As Feynman noted, an idea or theory "could never be proved right, because tomorrow's experiment might succeed in proving wrong what you thought was right."<ref name="FeynmanThe" /> Similarly, James and Dewey's ideas also ascribe truth to repeated testing which is "self-corrective" over time.

Pragmatism and negative pragmatism are also closely aligned with the [[coherence theory of truth]] in that any testing should not be isolated but rather incorporate knowledge from all human endeavors and experience. The universe is a whole and integrated system, and testing should acknowledge and account for its diversity. As Feynman said, "... if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."<ref>Feynman, ''The Character of Physical Law'', p. 150.</ref>

====Constructivist====
{{Main|Constructivist epistemology}}

[[Constructivist epistemology|Social constructivism]] holds that truth is constructed by social processes, is historically and culturally specific, and that it is in part shaped through the power struggles within a community. Constructivism views all of our knowledge as "constructed," because it does not reflect any external "transcendent" realities (as a pure correspondence theory might hold). Rather, perceptions of truth are viewed as contingent on convention, human perception, and social experience. It is believed by constructivists that representations of physical and biological reality, including [[Race (classification of human beings)|race]], [[Human sexuality|sexuality]], and [[gender]], are socially constructed.

[[Giambattista Vico]] was among the first to claim that history and culture were man-made. Vico's [[epistemology|epistemological]] orientation gathers the most diverse rays and unfolds in one axiom—''verum ipsum factum''—"truth itself is constructed". [[Hegel]] and [[Marx]] were among the other early proponents of the premise that truth is, or can be, socially constructed. Marx, like many critical theorists who followed, did not reject the existence of objective truth, but rather distinguished between true knowledge and knowledge that has been distorted through power or ideology. For Marx, scientific and true knowledge is "in accordance with the dialectical understanding of history" and ideological knowledge is "an epiphenomenal expression of the relation of material forces in a given economic arrangement".<ref>{{cite book |author1=May, Todd |author-link1=Todd May (philosopher) |title=Between Genealogy and Epistemology: Psychology, Politics, and Knowledge in the Thought of Michel Foucault |date=1993 |publisher=Pennsylvania State University Press |location=University Park |isbn=978-0271027821|oclc= 26553016}}</ref>{{page needed|date=March 2019}}

====Consensus====
{{Main|Consensus theory of truth}}

[[Consensus theory of truth|Consensus theory]] holds that truth is whatever is agreed upon, or in some versions, might come to be agreed upon, by some specified group. Such a group might include all human beings, or a [[subset]] thereof consisting of more than one person.

Among the current advocates of consensus theory as a useful accounting of the concept of "truth" is the philosopher [[Jürgen Habermas]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', Habermas, Jürgen, ''Knowledge and Human Interests'' (English translation, 1972).</ref> Habermas maintains that truth is what would be agreed upon in an [[ideal speech situation]].<ref>''See, e.g.'', Habermas, Jürgen, ''Knowledge and Human Interests'' (English translation, 1972), esp. Part III, pp. 187 ''ff''.</ref> Among the current strong critics of consensus theory is the philosopher [[Nicholas Rescher]].<ref>Rescher, Nicholas, ''Pluralism: Against the Demand for Consensus'' (1995).</ref>

===Minimalist===
====Deflationary====
{{Main|Deflationary theory of truth}}

Modern developments in the field of philosophy have resulted in the rise of a new thesis: that the term ''truth'' does not denote a real property of sentences or propositions. This thesis is in part a response to the common use of ''truth predicates'' (e.g., that some particular thing "...is true") which was particularly prevalent in philosophical discourse on truth in the first half of the 20th century. From this point of view, to assert that "'2 + 2 = 4' is true" is logically equivalent to asserting that "2 + 2 = 4", and the phrase "is true" is completely dispensable in this and every other context. In common parlance, truth predicates are not commonly heard, and it would be interpreted as an unusual occurrence were someone to utilise a truth predicate in an everyday conversation when asserting that something is true. Newer perspectives that take this discrepancy into account and work with sentence structures that are actually employed in common discourse can be broadly described:
* as ''deflationary'' theories of truth, since they attempt to deflate the presumed importance of the words "true" or ''truth'',
* as ''disquotational'' theories, to draw attention to the disappearance of the quotation marks in cases like the above example, or
* as ''minimalist'' theories of truth.<ref name=EPT/><ref>Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'' in the Introductory section of the book.</ref>

Whichever term is used, deflationary theories can be said to hold in common that "the predicate 'true' is an expressive convenience, not the name of a property requiring deep analysis."<ref name=EPT/> Once we have identified the truth predicate's formal features and utility, deflationists argue, we have said all there is to be said about truth. Among the theoretical concerns of these views is to explain away those special cases where it ''does'' appear that the concept of truth has peculiar and interesting properties. (See, e.g., [[Semantic paradox]]es, and below.)

In addition to highlighting such formal aspects of the predicate "is true", some deflationists point out that the concept enables us to express things that might otherwise require infinitely long sentences. For example, one cannot express confidence in Michael's accuracy by asserting the endless sentence:
:''Michael says, 'snow is white' and snow is white, or he says 'roses are red' and roses are red or he says ... etc.''
This assertion can also be succinctly expressed by saying: ''What Michael says is true''.<ref>[[Richard Kirkham]], [[Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction]], MIT Press, 1992.</ref>

====Performative====
Attributed to philosopher [[P. F. Strawson]] is the performative theory of truth which holds that to say "'Snow is white' is true" is to perform the [[speech act]] of signaling one's agreement with the claim that snow is white (much like nodding one's head in agreement). The idea that some statements are more actions than communicative statements is not as odd as it may seem. For example, when a wedding couple says "I do" at the appropriate time in a wedding, they are performing the act of taking the other to be their lawful wedded spouse. They are not ''describing'' themselves as taking the other, but actually ''doing'' so (perhaps the most thorough analysis of such "illocutionary acts" is [[J. L. Austin]], most notably in "''[[How to Do Things With Words]]''"<ref>J. L. Austin, "How to Do Things With Words". Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1975</ref>).

Strawson holds that a similar analysis is applicable to all speech acts, not just illocutionary ones: "To say a statement is true is not to make a statement about a statement, but rather to perform the act of agreeing with, accepting, or endorsing a statement. When one says 'It's true that it's raining,' one asserts no more than 'It's raining.' The function of [the statement] 'It's true that...' is to agree with, accept, or endorse the statement that 'it's raining.'"<ref>[[Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Vol. 6: ''Performative Theory of Truth'', auth: Gertrude Ezorsky, p. 88 (Macmillan, 1969)</ref>

====Redundancy and related====
{{Main|Redundancy theory of truth}}

According to the [[redundancy theory of truth]], asserting that a statement is true is completely equivalent to asserting the statement itself. For example, making the assertion that "&nbsp;'Snow is white' is true" is equivalent to asserting "Snow is white". Redundancy theorists infer from this premise that truth is a redundant concept; that is, it is merely a word that is traditionally used in conversation or writing, generally for emphasis, but not a word that actually equates to anything in reality. This theory is commonly attributed to [[Frank P. Ramsey]], who held that the use of words like ''fact'' and ''truth'' was nothing but a [[periphrasis|roundabout]] way of asserting a proposition, and that treating these words as separate problems in isolation from judgment was merely a "linguistic muddle".<ref name="EPT"/><ref>Ramsey, F.P. (1927), "Facts and Propositions", Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7, 153–70. Reprinted, pp. 34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, Philosophical Papers, David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990</ref><ref>Le Morvan, Pierre. (2004) "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", ''The British Journal for the History of Philosophy'' 12(4), pp. 705–18.</ref>

A variant of redundancy theory is the disquotational theory which uses a modified form of the logician [[Alfred Tarski]]'s [[#Semantic theory of truth|schema]]: To say that '"P" is true' is to say that P. A version of this theory was defended by [[C. J. F. Williams]] in his book ''What is Truth?'' Yet another version of deflationism is the prosentential theory of truth, first developed by Dorothy Grover, Joseph Camp, and [[Nuel Belnap]] as an elaboration of Ramsey's claims. They argue that sentences like "That's true", when said in response to "It's raining", are [[prosentence]]s, expressions that merely repeat the content of other expressions. In the same way that ''it'' means the same as ''my dog'' in the sentence ''My dog was hungry, so I fed it'', ''That's true'' is supposed to mean the same as ''It's raining''—if one says the latter and another then says the former. These variations do not necessarily follow Ramsey in asserting that truth is ''not'' a property, but rather can be understood to say that, for instance, the assertion "P" may well involve a substantial truth, and the theorists in this case are minimizing only the redundancy or prosentence involved in the statement such as "that's true".<ref name=EPT/>

The scope of deflationary principles is limited to representations that resemble sentences. They do not encompass a broader range of entities that are typically considered true or otherwise.

====Philosophical skepticism====
{{see also|Philosophical skepticism|Certainty}}

[[Philosophical skepticism]] is generally any questioning attitude or [[doubt]] towards one or more items of [[knowledge]] or [[belief]] which ascribe truth to their assertions and propositions.<ref>{{cite book |first=R. H. |last=Popkin |title=The History of Skepticism from Erasmus to Descartes (rev. ed. 1968); C. L. Stough, Greek Skepticism (1969); M. Burnyeat, ed., The Skeptical Tradition (1983); B. Stroud, The Significance of Philosophical Skepticism (1984) |url=http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Skeptikoi |work=Encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com |access-date=2018-06-04 |archive-date=2012-07-13 |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120713170158/http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Skeptikoi |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>"Philosophical views are typically classed as skeptical when they involve advancing some degree of doubt regarding claims that are elsewhere taken for granted." [http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/skepcont.htm utm.edu] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090113210019/http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/s/skepcont.htm |date=2009-01-13 }}</ref> The primary target of philosophical skepticism is [[epistemology]], but it can be applied to any domain, such as the [[supernatural]], morality ([[moral skepticism]]), and [[religious skepticism|religion]] (skepticism about the existence of God).<ref>{{Cite book|title = The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism|url = https://books.google.com/books?id=Ozv0lftrUeEC|publisher = Oxford University Press, US|year = 2008|isbn = 978-0-19-518321-4|language = en|first = John|last = Greco|author-link=John Greco (philosopher)}}</ref>

Philosophical skepticism comes in various forms. [[Radical skepticism|Radical forms of skepticism]] deny that knowledge or rational belief is possible and urge us to [[epoche|suspend judgment]] regarding ascription of truth on many or all controversial matters. More moderate forms of skepticism claim only that nothing can be known with certainty, or that we can know little or nothing about the "big questions" in life, such as whether God exists or whether there is an afterlife. [[Religious skepticism]] is "doubt concerning basic religious principles (such as immortality, providence, and revelation)".<ref>{{Cite web|title = Definition of SKEPTICISM|url = http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism|website = Merriam-Webster |access-date = 2016-02-05|archive-date = 2019-04-24|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20190424142033/https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/skepticism|url-status = live}}</ref> [[Scientific skepticism]] concerns testing beliefs for reliability, by subjecting them to [[wikt:systematic|systematic]] investigation using the [[scientific method]], to discover [[empirical evidence]] for them.

===Pluralist===
{{Main|Pluralist theories of truth}}
Several of the major theories of truth hold that there is a particular property the having of which makes a belief or proposition true. Pluralist theories of truth assert that there may be more than one property that makes propositions true: ethical propositions might be true by virtue of coherence. Propositions about the physical world might be true by corresponding to the objects and properties they are about.

Some of the pragmatic theories, such as those by [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Charles Peirce]] and [[William James]], included aspects of correspondence, coherence and constructivist theories.<ref name="Peirce Truth and Falsity"/><ref name=WJP/> [[Crispin Wright]] argued in his 1992 book ''Truth and Objectivity'' that any predicate which satisfied certain platitudes about truth qualified as a truth predicate. In some discourses, Wright argued, the role of the truth predicate might be played by the notion of superassertibility.<ref>Truth and Objectivity, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1992.</ref> [[Michael Lynch (philosopher)|Michael Lynch]], in a 2009 book ''Truth as One and Many'', argued that we should see truth as a functional property capable of being multiply manifested in distinct properties like correspondence or coherence.<ref>Truth as One and Many (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009).</ref>

==Formal theories==
===Logic===
{{Main|Logical truth|Criteria of truth|Truth value}}

[[Logic]] is concerned with the patterns in [[reason]] that can help tell if a [[proposition]] is true or not. Logicians use [[formal language]]s to express the truths they are concerned with, and as such there is only truth under some [[interpretation (logic)|interpretation]] or truth within some [[logical system]].

A logical truth (also called an analytic truth or a necessary truth) is a statement that is true in all possible worlds<ref>[[Ludwig Wittgenstein]], ''[[Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus]]''.</ref> or under all possible interpretations, as contrasted to a ''[[fact]]'' (also called a ''[[Analytic-synthetic distinction|synthetic claim]]'' or a ''[[Necessary and sufficient condition|contingency]]''), which is only true in this [[World (philosophy)|world]] as it has historically unfolded. A proposition such as "If p and q, then p" is considered to be a logical truth because of the meaning of the [[symbol (formal)|symbols]] and [[well-formed formula|words]] in it and not because of any fact of any particular world. They are such that they could not be untrue.

[[Degree of truth|Degrees]] of [[truth values|truth]] in logic may be represented using two or more discrete values, as with [[principle of bivalence|bivalent logic]] (or [[Boolean logic|binary logic]]), [[three-valued logic]], and other forms of [[finite-valued logic]].<ref>{{cite book| last=Kretzmann| first=Norman| title=William of Sherwood's Treatise on Syncategorematic Words| chapter=IV, section<nowiki>=</nowiki>2. 'Infinitely Many' and 'Finitely Many'| publisher=University of Minnesota Press| year=1968| chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fW5rlSy-5D8C&pg=PA42| isbn=978-0-8166-5805-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite book| last=Smith| first=Nicholas J.J.| chapter=Article 2.6| title=Many-Valued Logics| publisher=Routledge| year=2010| chapter-url=https://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~njjsmith/papers/smith-many-valued-logics.pdf| access-date=2018-05-25| archive-date=2018-04-08| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180408200831/http://www-personal.usyd.edu.au/~njjsmith/papers/smith-many-valued-logics.pdf| url-status=live}}</ref> Truth in logic can be represented using numbers comprising a [[continuous or discrete variable|continuous]] range, typically between 0 and 1, as with [[fuzzy logic]] and other forms of [[infinite-valued logic]].<ref>{{cite book| work=The Development of Modern Logic| last1=Mancosu| first1=Paolo| last2=Zach| first2=Richard| last3=Badesa| first3=Calixto| title=9. The Development of Mathematical Logic from Russell to Tarski 1900-1935| section=7.2 Many-valued logics| publisher=Oxford University Press| pages=418–20| year=2004| url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0jXavKsArnIC| isbn=978-0-19-972272-3}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last=Garrido| first=Angel| title=A Brief History of Fuzzy Logic| publisher=Revista EduSoft| year=2012| url=https://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/viewFile/308/390| access-date=2018-05-25| archive-date=2018-05-17| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180517152622/https://www.edusoft.ro/brain/index.php/brain/article/viewFile/308/390| url-status=live}}, Editorial</ref> In general, the concept of representing truth using more than two values is known as [[many-valued logic]].<ref>{{cite book| last=Rescher| first=Nicholas| publisher=Humanities Press Synthese Library volume 17| year=1968| doi=10.1007/978-94-017-3546-9_6| title=Topics in Philosophical Logic|pages = 54–125|isbn = 978-90-481-8331-9| chapter=Many-Valued Logic}}</ref>

===Mathematics===
{{anchor|Truth_in_mathematics}} 
{{Main|Model theory|Proof theory}}

There are two main approaches to truth in mathematics. They are the ''[[model theory|model theory of truth]]'' and the ''[[proof theory|proof theory of truth]]''.<ref>Penelope Maddy; ''Realism in Mathematics''; Series: Clarendon Paperbacks; Paperback: 216 pages; Publisher: Oxford University Press, US (1992); 978-0-19-824035-8.</ref>

Historically, with the nineteenth century development of [[Boolean algebra (logic)|Boolean algebra]], mathematical models of logic began to treat "truth", also represented as "T" or "1", as an arbitrary constant. "Falsity" is also an arbitrary constant, which can be represented as "F" or "0". In [[propositional logic]], these symbols can be manipulated according to a set of [[axioms]] and [[rules of inference]], often given in the form of [[truth table]]s.

In addition, from at least the time of [[Hilbert's program]] at the turn of the twentieth century to the proof of [[Gödel's incompleteness theorems]] and the development of the [[Church–Turing thesis]] in the early part of that century, true statements in mathematics were [[logical positivism|generally assumed]] to be those statements that are provable in a formal axiomatic system.<ref>Elliott Mendelson; ''Introduction to Mathematical Logic''; Series: Discrete Mathematics and Its Applications; Hardcover: 469 pages; Publisher: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 5 edition (August 11, 2009); 978-1-58488-876-5.</ref>

The works of [[Kurt Gödel]], [[Alan Turing]], and others shook this assumption, with the development of statements that are true but cannot be proven within the system.<ref>''See, e.g.,'' Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) esp. 89 ''ff''.</ref> Two examples of the latter can be found in [[Hilbert's problems]]. Work on [[Hilbert's 10th problem]] led in the late twentieth century to the construction of specific [[Diophantine equations]] for which it is undecidable whether they have a solution,<ref>M. Davis. "Hilbert's Tenth Problem is Unsolvable." ''American Mathematical Monthly'' 80, pp. 233–69, 1973</ref> or even if they do, whether they have a finite or infinite number of solutions. More fundamentally, [[Hilbert's first problem]] was on the [[continuum hypothesis]].<ref>Yandell, Benjamin H.. ''The Honors Class. Hilbert's Problems and Their Solvers'' (2002).</ref> Gödel and [[Paul Cohen (mathematician)|Paul Cohen]] showed that this hypothesis cannot be proved or disproved using the standard [[axiom]]s of [[set theory]].<ref>Chaitin, Gregory L., ''The Limits of Mathematics'' (1997) 1–28, 89 ''ff''.</ref> In the view of some, then, it is equally reasonable to take either the continuum hypothesis or its negation as a new axiom.

Gödel thought that the ability to perceive the truth of a mathematical or logical proposition is a matter of [[logical intuition|intuition]], an ability he admitted could be ultimately beyond the scope of a formal theory of logic or mathematics<ref>{{cite web| last=Ravitch| first=Harold| title=On Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics| year=1998| url=http://www.friesian.com/goedel/chap-2.htm| access-date=2018-05-25| archive-date=2018-02-28| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180228005628/http://friesian.com/goedel/chap-2.htm| url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| last=Solomon| first=Martin| title=On Kurt Gödel's Philosophy of Mathematics| year=1998| url=http://calculemus.org/lect/07logika/godel-solomon.html| access-date=2018-05-25| archive-date=2016-03-04| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304030146/http://www.calculemus.org/lect/07logika/godel-solomon.html| url-status=live}}</ref> and perhaps best considered in the realm of human [[comprehension (logic)|comprehension]] and communication. But he commented, "The more I think about language, the more it amazes me that people ever understand each other at all".<ref>{{cite book| last=Wang| first=Hao| title=A Logical Journey: From Gödel to Philosophy| publisher=The MIT Press| year=1997| url=https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0262261251}} (A discussion of Gödel's views on [[logical intuition]] is woven throughout the book; the quote appears on page 75.)</ref>

===Tarski's semantics===
{{main|Semantic theory of truth|Tarski's theory of truth}}

The [[semantic theory of truth]] has as its general case for a given language:
:'P' is true if and only if P
where 'P' refers to the sentence (the sentence's name), and P is just the sentence itself.

[[Tarski's theory of truth]] (named after [[Alfred Tarski]]) was developed for formal languages, such as [[formal logic]]. Here he restricted it in this way: no language could contain its own truth predicate, that is, the expression ''is true'' could only apply to sentences in some other language. The latter he called an ''object language'', the language being talked about. (It may, in turn, have a truth predicate that can be applied to sentences in still another language.) The reason for his restriction was that languages that contain their own truth predicate will contain [[Liar paradox|paradoxical]] sentences such as, "This sentence is not true". As a result, Tarski held that the semantic theory could not be applied to any natural language, such as English, because they contain their own truth predicates. [[Donald Davidson (philosopher)|Donald Davidson]] used it as the foundation of his [[truth-conditional semantics]] and linked it to [[radical interpretation]] in a form of [[coherentism]].

[[Bertrand Russell]] is credited with noticing the existence of such paradoxes even in the best symbolic formations of mathematics in his day, in particular the paradox that came to be named after him, [[Russell's paradox]]. Russell and [[Alfred North Whitehead|Whitehead]] attempted to solve these problems in ''[[Principia Mathematica]]'' by putting statements into a hierarchy of [[type theory|types]], wherein a statement cannot refer to itself, but only to statements lower in the hierarchy. This in turn led to new orders of difficulty regarding the precise natures of types and the structures of conceptually possible [[type system]]s that have yet to be resolved to this day.

===Kripke's semantics<!--Linked from 'Semantic theory of truth'-->===
{{Main|Kripke's theory of truth}}
[[Kripke's theory of truth]] (named after [[Saul Kripke]]) contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to construct one as follows:
* Beginning with a subset of sentences of a natural language that contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is false"). So, ''The barn is big'' is included in the subset, but not "''The barn is big'' is true", nor problematic sentences such as "''This sentence'' is false".
* Defining truth just for the sentences in that subset.
* Extending the definition of truth to include sentences that predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So "''The barn is big'' is true" is now included, but not either "''This sentence'' is false" nor "<nowiki>'</nowiki>''The barn is big'' is true' is true".
* Defining truth for all sentences that predicate truth or falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated infinitely, so that truth is defined for ''The barn is big''; then for "''The barn is big'' is true"; then for "<nowiki>'</nowiki>''The barn is big'' is true' is true", and so on.

Truth never gets defined for sentences like ''This sentence is false'', since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts the [[principle of bivalence]]: every sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in deriving the [[liar paradox]], the paradox is dissolved.<ref>Kripke, Saul. "Outline of a Theory of Truth", Journal of Philosophy, 72 (1975), 690–716</ref>

However, it has been [[Proof sketch for Gödel's first incompleteness theorem|shown by Gödel]] that self-reference cannot be avoided naively{{clarify|date=November 2022|reason=
Is this paragraph implying that Kripke semantics attempt to "naively avoid self-reference"? I am pretty certain that Kripke was well aware of, and deeply understood both Godel's and Tarski's work relevant to these questions, given that he was a mathematical logician in the period several decades after Godel's and Tarski's foundational publications. So all things being equal, unless another commensurate expert is claiming that Kripke is doing this, it shouldn't be assumed that he is -- in which case a citation to the expert, and where their opinion is expressed, is needed.
}}{{citation needed|date=November 2022|reason=Which of Godel's publications is this referring to?
}}, since propositions about seemingly unrelated objects can have an informal self-referential meaning; in Gödel's work, these objects are integer numbers, and they have an informal meaning regarding propositions{{clarify|date=November 2022|reason=
Great, but what part of Kripke semantics relies on (something equivalent to) first-order Peano arithmetic, which as far as I understand is the context where the Goedel numbering method (which this paragraph is seemingly referencing) is relevant. And based on this informal discussion, it's unclear to me whether the author is conflating object language and metalanguage.
}}. In fact, this idea — manifested by the [[diagonal lemma]]—is the basis for [[Tarski's undefinability theorem|Tarski's theorem]] that truth cannot be consistently defined.{{clarify|date=November 2022|reason=
Again Saul Kripke is a mathematical logician, he was obviously aware of diagonal arguments (also relevant to Cantor's theorem, most generalized by Lawvere's theorem), so the basis for assuming that he proposed a system of formal semantics that doesn't make sense in light of a diagonal argument seems highly dubious. That might not be what this paragraph is claiming, but again I don't understand what it is claiming.
}}

It has thus been claimed<ref>Keith Simmons, ''Universality and the Liar: An Essay on Truth and the Diagonal Argument'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1993</ref> that Kripke's system indeed leads to contradiction{{dubious|date=November 2022}}: while its truth predicate is only partial, it does give truth value (true/false) to propositions such as the one built in Tarski's proof,{{dubious|reason=Based on what I understand of Kripke semantics based on Goldblatt's book, this seems likely to be incorrect, because propositions can either not be given any truth values, or be given one truth value in one part of the poset (partially ordered set) and another truth value in another part of the poset. So this really sounds to me like a misinterpretation of both partial orders in general (which need not be total orders a.k.a. linear orders) as well as Kripke semantics in particular.
|date=November 2022}} and is therefore inconsistent. While there is still a debate on whether Tarski's proof can be implemented to every similar partial truth system,{{clarify|date=November 2022|reason=
What is a "partial truth system"? (I.e. the precise mathematical definition?) And in what metalanguage/metalogic are people trying to prove the consistency of these "partial truth systems" in? Also, no one has shown ZFC to be consistent - does that mean this paragraph is claiming that the foundations of mathematics are dubious? Maybe they are, but it's not clear to me either way what this is claiming. E.g. is it conflating "consistency" or "completeness" of a theory (expressed in a given logic) with "consistency" or "completeness" of a given logic? 
}} none have been shown to be consistent by [[Consistency proof|acceptable methods]] used in [[mathematical logic]].{{citation needed|date=November 2022}}

[[Kripke semantics|Kripke's semantics]] are related to the use of [[topos|topoi]] and other concepts from [[category theory]] in the study of [[mathematical logic]].<ref>{{Cite book |last=Goldblatt |first=Robert |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/9622076 |title=Topoi, the categorial analysis of logic |date=1983 |publisher=Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada, Elsevier North-Holland |isbn=0-444-86711-2 |edition=revised |location=Amsterdam |oclc=9622076}}</ref> They provide a choice of formal semantics for [[intuitionistic logic]].

==Folk beliefs==
The [[truth predicate]] "''P'' is true" has great practical value in human language, allowing ''efficient'' endorsement or impeaching of claims made by others, to emphasize the truth or falsity of a statement, or to enable various indirect ([[Gricean]]) conversational implications.<ref>{{cite book|last1=Scharp|first1=Kevin|title=Replacing truth|date=2013|publisher=Oxford Univ. Press|location=Oxford|isbn=978-0-19-965385-0|edition=First|chapter=6: What is the Use?}}</ref> Individuals or societies will sometime punish "false" statements to deter falsehoods;<ref>{{cite web|title=truth {{!}} philosophy and logic|url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic|website=Encyclopedia Britannica|access-date=28 July 2017|language=en|quote=Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil a person’s plans and may even cost him his life. Telling what is not true may result in legal and social penalties.|archive-date=5 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190605223755/https://www.britannica.com/topic/truth-philosophy-and-logic|url-status=live}}</ref> the oldest surviving law text, the [[Code of Ur-Nammu]], lists penalties for false accusations of sorcery or adultery, as well as for committing [[perjury]] in court. Even four-year-old children can pass simple "[[Theory of mind#False-belief task|false belief]]" tests and successfully assess that another individual's belief diverges from reality in a specific way;<ref>Wellman, Henry M., David Cross, and Julanne Watson. "Meta‐analysis of theory‐of‐mind development: the truth about false belief." Child development 72.3 (2001): 655–84.</ref> by adulthood there are strong implicit intuitions about "truth" that form a "folk theory" of truth. These intuitions include:<ref>Lynch, Michael P. "Alethic functionalism and our folk theory of truth." Synthese 145.1 (2005): 29–43.</ref>
* Capture (''T''-in): If ''P'', then ''P'' is true
* Release (''T''-out): If ''P'' is true, then ''P''
* [[Law of noncontradiction|Noncontradiction]]: A statement can not be both true and false
* Normativity: It is usually good to believe what is true
* False beliefs: The notion that believing a statement does not necessarily make it true

Like many folk theories, the folk theory of truth is useful in everyday life but, upon deep analysis, turns out to be technically self-contradictory; in particular, any [[formal system]] that fully obeys "capture and release" semantics for truth (also known as the ''[[T-schema]]''), and that also respects classical logic, is provably [[inconsistent]] and succumbs to the [[liar paradox]] or to a similar contradiction.<ref>Bueno, Otávio, and Mark Colyvan. "Logical non-apriorism and the law of non-contradiction." The law of non-contradiction: New philosophical essays (2004): 156–75.</ref>

==Notable views==
{{summarize section|date=March 2024}}
===Ancient Greek philosophy===

{{see also| Aletheia}}
[[Socrates]]', [[Plato]]'s and [[Aristotle]]'s ideas about truth are seen by some as consistent with [[Correspondence theory of truth|correspondence theory]]. In his ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]]'', Aristotle stated: "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".<ref name=StanfordCorr>David, Marion (2005). [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#1 "Correspondence Theory of Truth"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140225071446/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/#1 |date=2014-02-25 }} in [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]</ref> The [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]] proceeds to say of Aristotle:

<blockquote>[...] Aristotle sounds much more like a genuine correspondence theorist in the ''Categories'' (12b11, 14b14), where he talks of "underlying things" that make statements true and implies that these "things" (pragmata) are logically structured situations or facts (viz., his sitting, his not sitting). Most influential is his claim in ''De Interpretatione'' (16a3) that thoughts are "likenesses" (homoiosis) of things. Although he nowhere defines truth in terms of a thought's likeness to a thing or fact, it is clear that such a definition would fit well into his overall philosophy of mind. [...]<ref name=StanfordCorr/></blockquote>

Similar statements can also be found in Plato's dialogues (''[[Cratylus (dialogue)|Cratylus]]'' 385b2, ''[[Sophist (dialogue)|Sophist]]'' 263b).<ref name=StanfordCorr/>

Some Greek philosophers maintained that truth was either not accessible to mortals, or of greatly limited accessibility, forming early [[philosophical skepticism]]. Among these were [[Xenophanes]], [[Democritus]], and [[Pyrrho]], the founder of [[Pyrrhonism]], who argued that there was no criterion of truth.

The [[Epicureanism|Epicureans]] believed that all sense perceptions were true,<ref>{{Cite book|title=The Cambridge Companion to Epicureanism|url=https://archive.org/details/cambridgecompani00warr_995|url-access=limited|last=Asmis|first=Elizabeth|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2009|editor-last=Warren|editor-first=James|page=[https://archive.org/details/cambridgecompani00warr_995/page/n93 84]|chapter=Epicurean empiricism}}</ref><ref name=":252">{{Cite book|title=Epicureanism|last=O'Keefe|first=Tim|publisher=University of California Press|year=2010|pages=97–98}}</ref> and that errors arise in how we judge those perceptions.

The [[Stoicism|Stoics]] conceived truth as accessible from [[Phantasiai|impressions]] via [[katalepsis|cognitive grasping]].

===Medieval philosophy===

====Avicenna (980–1037)====
In [[early Islamic philosophy]], [[Avicenna]] (Ibn Sina) defined truth in his work [[Kitab Al-Shifa]] ''[[The Book of Healing]]'', Book I, Chapter 8, as:
{{blockquote|What corresponds in the mind to what is outside it.<ref>Osman Amin (2007), "Influence of Muslim Philosophy on the West", ''Monthly Renaissance'' 17 (11).</ref>}}

[[Avicenna]] elaborated on his definition of truth later in Book VIII, Chapter 6:
{{Blockquote|The truth of a thing is the property of the being of each thing which has been established in it.<ref name=Aertsen>Jan A. Aertsen (1988), ''Nature and Creature: Thomas Aquinas's Way of Thought'', p. 152. Brill, 978-90-04-08451-3.</ref>}}

However, this definition is merely a rendering of the [[medieval]] Latin translation of the work by Simone van Riet.<ref>{{cite book
| author = Simone van Riet
| title = Liber de philosophia prima, sive Scientia divina
| page = 413
| language = la}}</ref> A modern translation of the original Arabic text states:

{{blockquote|Truth is also said of the veridical belief in the existence [of something].<ref>{{cite book
| title = Avicenna: The Metaphysics of The Healing
| publisher = Brigham Young University Press
| year = 2005
| page = 284
| others = Michael E. Marmura
| isbn = 978-0-934893-77-0
}}</ref>}}

====Aquinas (1225–1274)====
Reevaluating Avicenna, and also Augustine and Aristotle, [[Thomas Aquinas]] stated in his ''Disputed Questions on Truth'':

{{blockquote|A natural thing, being placed between two intellects, is called ''true'' insofar as it conforms to either. It is said to be true with respect to its conformity with the divine intellect insofar as it fulfills the end to which it was ordained by the divine intellect... With respect to its conformity with a human intellect, a thing is said to be true insofar as it is such as to cause a true estimate about itself.<ref>''Disputed Questions on Truth'', 1, 2, c, reply to Obj. 1. Trans. Mulligan, McGlynn, Schmidt, ''Truth'', vol. I, pp. 10–12.</ref>}}

Thus, for Aquinas, the truth of the human intellect (logical truth) is based on the truth in things (ontological truth).<ref>"Veritas supra ens fundatur" (Truth is founded on being). ''Disputed Questions on Truth'', 10, 2, reply to Obj. 3.</ref> Following this, he wrote an elegant re-statement of Aristotle's view in his [http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1016.htm Summa I.16.1]:

{{blockquote|Veritas est adæquatio intellectus et rei. <br /> (Truth is the conformity of the intellect and things.)}} Aquinas also said that real things participate in the act of being of the [[God|Creator God]] who is Subsistent Being, Intelligence, and Truth. Thus, these beings possess the light of intelligibility and are knowable. These things (beings; [[reality]]) are the foundation of the truth that is found in the human mind, when it acquires knowledge of things, first through the [[sense]]s, then through the [[understanding]] and the [[judgement]] done by [[reason]]. For Aquinas, human [[intelligence]] ("intus", within and "legere", to read) has the capability to reach the [[essence]] and [[existence]] of things because it has a non-material, [[Spirituality|spiritual]] element, although some moral, educational, and other elements might interfere with its capability.

====Changing concepts of truth in the Middle Ages====
[[Richard Firth Green]] examined the concept of truth in the later Middle Ages in his ''A Crisis of Truth'', and concludes that roughly during the reign of [[Richard II of England]] the very meaning of the concept changes. The idea of the oath, which was so much part and parcel of for instance [[Romance (heroic literature)|Romance literature]],<ref>{{cite journal|last=Rock|first=Catherine A.|year=2006|title=Forsworn and Fordone: Arcite as Oath-Breaker in the "Knight's Tale"|journal=[[The Chaucer Review]]|volume=40|issue=4|pages=416–32|jstor=25094334|doi=10.1353/cr.2006.0009|s2cid=159853483 }}</ref> changes from a subjective concept to a more objective one (in [[Derek Pearsall]]'s summary).<ref name=pearsall>{{cite journal|last=Pearsall|first=Derek|year=2004|title=Medieval Literature and Historical Enquiry|journal=[[Modern Language Review]]|volume=99|issue=4|pages=xxxi–xlii|jstor=3738608|doi=10.2307/3738608|s2cid=155446847 }}</ref> Whereas truth (the "trouthe" of ''[[Sir Gawain and the Green Knight]]'') was first "an ethical truth in which truth is understood to reside in persons", in Ricardian England it "transforms...into a [[political truth]] in which truth is understood to reside in documents".<ref>{{cite journal|last=Fowler|first=Elizabeth|year=2003|title=Rev. of Green, ''A Crisis of Truth''|journal=[[Speculum (journal)|Speculum]]|volume=78|issue=1|pages=179–82|jstor=3301477|doi=10.1017/S0038713400099310}}</ref>

===Modern philosophy===

====Kant (1724–1804)====
[[Immanuel Kant]] endorses a definition of truth along the lines of the correspondence theory of truth.<ref name=StanfordCorr/> Kant writes in the ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]'': "The nominal definition of truth, namely that it is the agreement of cognition with its object, is here granted and presupposed".<ref name = "Kant-1781">Kant, Immanuel (1781/1787), ''[[Critique of Pure Reason]]''. Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), A58/B82.</ref> However, Kant denies that this correspondence definition of truth provides us with a test or criterion to establish which judgements are true. Kant states in his logic lectures:
<blockquote>[...] Truth, it is said, consists in the agreement of cognition with its object. In consequence of this mere nominal definition, my cognition, to count as true, is supposed to agree with its object. Now I can compare the object with my cognition, however, only ''by cognizing it''.<!-- I wonder if the original had this cursive... --> Hence my cognition is supposed to confirm itself, which is far short of being sufficient for truth. For since the object is outside me, the cognition in me, all I can ever pass judgement on is whether my cognition of the object agrees with my cognition of the object.

The ancients called such a circle in explanation a ''diallelon''. And actually the logicians were always reproached with this mistake by the sceptics, who observed that with this definition of truth it is just as when someone makes a statement before a court and in doing so appeals to a witness with whom no one is acquainted, but who wants to establish his credibility by maintaining that the one who called him as witness is an honest man. The accusation was grounded, too. Only the solution of the indicated problem is impossible without qualification and for every man. [...]<ref name = "Kant-1801">Kant, Immanuel (1801), ''The Jäsche Logic'', in ''Lectures on Logic''. Translated and edited by J. Michael Young (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 557–58.</ref></blockquote>
This passage makes use of his distinction between nominal and real definitions. A nominal definition explains the meaning of a linguistic expression. A real definition describes the essence of certain [[Object (philosophy)|objects]] and enables us to determine whether any given item falls within the definition.<ref name = "Vanzo-Kant">Alberto Vanzo, "Kant on the Nominal Definition of Truth", ''Kant-Studien'', 101 (2010), pp. 147–66.</ref> Kant holds that the definition of truth is merely nominal and, therefore, we cannot employ it to establish which judgements are true. According to Kant, the ancient skeptics were critical of the logicians for holding that, by means of a merely nominal definition of truth, they can establish which judgements are true. They were trying to do something that is "impossible without qualification and for every man".<ref name = "Kant-1801" />

====Hegel (1770–1831)====
[[G. W. F. Hegel]] distanced his philosophy from empiricism by presenting truth as a self-moving process, rather than a matter of merely subjective thoughts. Hegel's truth is analogous to [[organics]] in that it is self-determining according to its own inner logic: "Truth is its own self-movement within itself."<ref>"Die Wahrheit ist die Bewegung ihrer an ihr selbst." ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]'', Preface, ¶ 48</ref>

====Schopenhauer (1788–1860)====
For [[Arthur Schopenhauer]],<ref>''On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason'', §§ 29–33</ref> a [[judgment]] is a combination or separation of two or more [[concept]]s. If a judgment is to be an expression of [[knowledge]], it must have a [[Principle of sufficient reason|sufficient reason]] or ground by which the judgment could be called true. ''Truth is the reference of a judgment to something different from itself which is its sufficient reason (ground)''. Judgments can have material, formal, transcendental, or metalogical truth. A judgment has ''material'' truth if its concepts are based on intuitive perceptions that are generated from sensations. If a judgment has its reason (ground) in another judgment, its truth is called logical or ''formal''. If a judgment, of, for example, pure mathematics or pure science, is based on the forms (space, time, causality) of intuitive, empirical knowledge, then the judgment has ''transcendental'' truth.

====Kierkegaard (1813–1855)====
When [[Søren Kierkegaard]], as his character ''Johannes Climacus'', ends his writings: ''My thesis was, subjectivity, heartfelt is the truth'', he does not advocate for [[subjectivism]] in its extreme form (the theory that something is true simply because one believes it to be so), but rather that the objective approach to matters of personal truth cannot shed any light upon that which is most essential to a person's life. Objective truths are concerned with the facts of a person's being, while subjective truths are concerned with a person's way of being. Kierkegaard agrees that objective truths for the study of subjects like mathematics, science, and history are relevant and necessary, but argues that objective truths do not shed any light on a person's inner relationship to existence. At best, these truths can only provide a severely narrowed perspective that has little to do with one's actual experience of life.<ref>Kierkegaard, Søren. ''Concluding Unscientific Postscript''. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1992</ref>

While objective truths are final and static, subjective truths are continuing and dynamic. The truth of one's existence is a living, inward, and subjective experience that is always in the process of becoming. The values, morals, and spiritual approaches a person adopts, while not denying the existence of objective truths of those beliefs, can only become truly known when they have been inwardly appropriated through subjective experience. Thus, Kierkegaard criticizes all systematic philosophies which attempt to know life or the truth of existence via theories and objective knowledge about reality. As Kierkegaard claims, human truth is something that is continually occurring, and a human being cannot find truth separate from the subjective experience of one's own existing, defined by the values and fundamental essence that consist of one's way of life.<ref>Watts, Michael. ''Kierkegaard'', Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2003</ref>

====Nietzsche (1844–1900)====
[[Friedrich Nietzsche]] believed the search for truth, or 'the will to truth', was a consequence of the ''[[will to power]]'' of philosophers. He thought that truth should be used as long as it promoted life and the ''will to power'', and he thought untruth was better than truth if it had this life enhancement as a consequence. As he wrote in ''[[Beyond Good and Evil]]'', "The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding..." (aphorism 4). He proposed the ''will to power'' as a truth only because, according to him, it was the most life-affirming and sincere perspective one could have.

Robert Wicks discusses Nietzsche's basic view of truth as follows:
<blockquote>[...] Some scholars regard Nietzsche's 1873 unpublished essay, "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense" ("Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn") as a keystone in his thought. In this essay, Nietzsche rejects the idea of universal constants, and claims that what we call "truth" is only "a mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms." His view at this time is that arbitrariness completely prevails within human experience: concepts originate via the very artistic transference of nerve stimuli into images; "truth" is nothing more than the invention of fixed conventions for merely practical purposes, especially those of repose, security and consistence. [...]<ref>Robert Wicks, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#EarWri187187 Friedrich Nietzsche – Early Writings: 1872–1876] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180904231138/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/#EarWri187187 |date=2018-09-04 }}, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2008 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref></blockquote>

Separately Nietzsche suggested that an ancient, metaphysical belief in the divinity of Truth lies at the heart of and has served as the foundation for the entire subsequent [[Western intellectual tradition]]: "But you will have gathered what I am getting at, namely, that it is still a metaphysical faith on which our faith in science rests—that even we knowers of today, we godless anti-metaphysicians still take ''our'' fire too, from the flame lit by the thousand-year old faith, the Christian faith which was also Plato's faith, that God is Truth; that Truth is 'Divine'..."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Vf8KETLiKXMC&q=%22even+we+knowers+of+today%22&pg=PA201|title=Nietzsche: The Gay Science: With a Prelude in German Rhymes and an Appendix of Songs|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|first2=Bernard|last2=Williams|first3=Josefine|last3=Nauckhoff|year=2001|publisher=Cambridge University Press|via=Google Books|isbn=978-0-521-63645-2}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wMzu8j4D1SYC&q=god+is+truth&pg=PA112|title=Nietzsche: 'On the Genealogy of Morality' and Other Writings Student Edition|first=Friedrich|last=Nietzsche|year=2006|publisher=Cambridge University Press|via=Google Books|isbn=978-1-139-46121-4}}</ref>

Moreover, Nietzsche challenges the notion of objective truth, arguing that truths are human creations and serve practical purposes. He wrote, "Truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that this is what they are."<ref>{{Cite book|title=Beyond Good and Evil|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|year=1997|publisher=Dover Publications|isbn=978-0486298689|page=46}}</ref> He argues that truth is a human invention, arising from the artistic transference of nerve stimuli into images, serving practical purposes like repose, security, and consistency; formed through metaphorical and rhetorical devices, shaped by societal conventions and forgotten origins: <blockquote>"What, then, is truth? A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically..."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qZAmAQAAIAAJ|title=The Portable Nietzsche|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|year=1976|publisher=Penguin Books|isbn=978-0140150629|page=46}}</ref></blockquote>

Nietzsche argues that truth is always filtered through individual perspectives and shaped by various interests and biases. In "On the Genealogy of Morality," he asserts, "There are no facts, only interpretations."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=rttCAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA73|title=On the Genealogy of Morality|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|year=1887|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199537082|page=73}}</ref> He suggests that truth is subject to constant reinterpretation and change, influenced by shifting cultural and historical contexts as he writes in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" that "I say unto you: one must still have chaos in oneself to be able to give birth to a dancing star."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ezSQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT121|title=Thus Spoke Zarathustra|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|year=1883|publisher=Penguin UK|isbn=9780140441185|page=46}}</ref> In the same book, Zarathustra proclaims, "Truths are illusions which we have forgotten are illusions; they are metaphors that have become worn out and have been drained of sensuous force, coins which have lost their embossing and are now considered as metal and no longer as coins."<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ezSQDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT121|title=Thus Spoke Zarathustra|first1=Friedrich|last1=Nietzsche|year=1883|publisher=Penguin UK|isbn=9780140441185|page=121}}</ref>

====Heidegger (1889–1976)====
Other philosophers take this common meaning to be secondary and derivative. According to [[Martin Heidegger]], the original meaning and [[essence]] of truth in [[Ancient Greece]] was unconcealment, or the revealing or bringing of what was previously hidden into the open, as indicated by the original Greek term for truth, ''[[aletheia]]''.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Heidegger |first=Martin |title=On the Essence of Truth |url=https://aphelis.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Martin-Heidegger-On-the-Essence-of-Truth.pdf |access-date=3 October 2023 |website=aphelis.net}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm|title=Martin Heidegger on Aletheia (Truth) as Unconcealment|access-date=2010-08-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150626101634/http://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm|archive-date=2015-06-26|url-status=dead}}</ref> On this view, the conception of truth as correctness is a later derivation from the concept's original essence, a development Heidegger traces to the [[Latin]] term ''[[veritas]]''. Owing to the primacy of [[ontology]] in Heidegger's philosophy, he considered this truth to lie within Being itself, and already in ''[[Being and Time]]'' (1927) had identified truth with "[[Heideggerian terminology|being-truth]]" or the "truth of Being" and partially with the Kantian [[thing-in-itself]] in an epistemology essentially concerning a mode of ''[[Dasein]]''.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Heidegger |first=Martin |title=Being and Time |publisher=Basil Blackswell |year=1962 |edition=1st |location=Oxford |pages=256–274}}</ref>

==== Sartre (1905–1980) ====
In ''[[Being and Nothingness]]'' (1943), partially following Heidegger, [[Jean-Paul Sartre]] identified our knowledge of the truth as a relation between the [[Being in itself|in-itself]] and [[for-itself]] of [[being]] - yet simultaneously closely connected in this vein to the data available to the material personhood, in the body, of an individual in their interaction with the world and others - with Sartre's description that "the world is human" allowing him to postulate all truth as strictly ''understood'' by [[self-consciousness]] as self-consciousness ''of'' something,<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sartre |first=Jean-Paul |title=Being and Nothingness: An Essay on Phenomenological Ontolgoy |publisher=Philosophical Library |year=1956 |edition=1st |location=New York}}</ref> a view also preceded by [[Henri Bergson]] in ''[[Time and Free Will]]'' (1889), the reading of which Sartre had credited for his interest in philosophy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sartre |first=Jean-Paul |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/56549324 |title=The imaginary : a phenomenological psychology of the imagination |date=2004 |publisher=Routledge |others=Arlette Elkaïm-Sartre, Jonathan Webber |isbn=0-203-64410-7 |location=London |oclc=56549324}}</ref> This first [[Existentialism|existentialist]] theory, more fully fleshed out in Sartre's essay ''Truth and Existence'' (1948), which already demonstrates a more radical departure from Heidegger in its emphasis on the primacy of the idea, already formulated in ''Being and Nothingness'', of [[Existence precedes essence|existence as preceding essence]] in its role in the formulation of truth, has nevertheless been critically examined as [[Idealism|idealist]] rather than [[Materialism|materialist]] in its departure from more traditional idealist epistemologies such as those of [[Ancient Greek philosophy]] in Plato and Aristotle, and staying as does Heidegger with Kant.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wilder |first=Kathleen |title=Truth and existence: The idealism in Sartre's theory of truth |journal=International Journal of Philosophical Studies |year=1995 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=91–109|doi=10.1080/09672559508570805 }}</ref>

Later, in the ''[[Search for a Method]]'' (1957), in which Sartre used a unification of existentialism and [[Marxism]] that he would later formulate in the ''[[Critique of Dialectical Reason]]'' (1960), Sartre, with his growing emphasis on the [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegelian]] totalisation of [[historicity]], posited a conception of truth still defined by its process of relation to a container giving it material meaning, but with specfiic reference to a role in this broader totalisation, for "subjectivity is neither everything nor nothing; it represents a moment in the objective process (that in which externality is internalised), and this moment is perpetually eliminated only to be perpetually reborn": "For us, truth is something which becomes, it ''has'' and ''will have'' become. It is a totalisation which is forever being totalised. Particular facts do not signify anything; they are neither true nor false so long as they are not related, through the mediation of various partial totalities, to the totalisation in process." Sartre describes this as a "''[[Philosophical realism|realistic]]'' epistemology", developed out of [[Karl Marx|Marx]]'s ideas but with such a development only possible in an existentialist light, as with the theme of the whole work.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sartre |first=Jean-Paul |title=Search for a Method |publisher=Knopf |year=1963 |edition=1st |location=New York}}</ref><ref>{{Citation |last=Skirke |first=Christian |title=Jean-Paul Sartre |date=2014-04-28 |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0192 |work=Philosophy |publisher=Oxford University Press |doi=10.1093/obo/9780195396577-0192 |isbn=978-0-19-539657-7 |access-date=2023-02-25}}</ref> In an early segment of the lengthy two-volume ''Critique'' of 1960, Sartre continued to describe truth as a "totalising" "truth of history" to be interpreted by a "Marxist historian", whilst his break with Heidegger's epistemological ideas is finalised in the description of a seemingly antinomous "[[Dualism in cosmology|dualism]] of Being and Truth" as the essence of a truly Marxist epistemology.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sartre |first=Jean-Paul |title=Critique of Dialectical Reason |publisher=Verso |year=2004 |location=London |pages=15–41}}</ref>

==== Camus (1913–1960) ====
The well-regarded French philosopher [[Albert Camus]] wrote in his famous essay, ''[[The Myth of Sisyphus]]'' (1942), that "there are truths but no truth", in fundamental agreement with Nietzsche's [[perspectivism]], and favourably cites Kierkergaad in posing that "no truth is absolute or can render satisfactory an existence that is impossible in itself".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Camus |first=Albert |title=The Myth of Sisyphus and Other Essays |publisher=Penguin Group |year=2020 |edition=1st |location=London |pages=14–16}}</ref> Later, in ''[[The Rebel (book)|The Rebel]]'' (1951), he declared, akin to Sartre, that "the very lowest form of truth" is "the truth of history",<ref>{{Cite book |last=Camus |first=Albert |title=The Rebel |publisher=Penguin Group |year=2013 |edition=3rd |location=London |pages=180}}</ref> but describes this in the context of its abuse and like Kierkergaad in the ''[[Concluding Unscientific Postscript to Philosophical Fragments|Concluding Unscientific Postscript]]'' he criticizes Hegel in holding a historical attitude "which consists of saying: 'This is truth, which appears to us, however, to be error, but which is true precisely because it happens to be error. As for proof, it is not I, but history, at its conclusion, that will furnish it.'"<ref>{{Cite book |last=Camus |first=Albert |title=The Rebel |publisher=Penguin Group |year=2013 |edition=3rd |location=London |pages=90}}</ref>

====Whitehead (1861–1947)====
[[Alfred North Whitehead]], a British mathematician who became an American philosopher, said: "There are no whole truths; all truths are half-truths. It is trying to treat them as whole truths that plays the devil".<ref>Alfred North Whitehead, ''Dialogues'', 1954: Prologue.</ref>

The logical progression or connection of this line of thought is to conclude that truth can lie, since [[half-truth]]s are deceptive and may lead to a false conclusion.

====Peirce (1839–1914)====
[[Pragmatists]] like [[C. S. Peirce]] take truth to have some manner of essential relation to human practices for inquiring into and [[discovering]] truth, with Peirce himself holding that truth is what human [[inquiry]] would find out on a matter, if our practice of inquiry were taken as far as it could profitably go: "The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth..."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html|title=How to Make Our Ideas Clear|access-date=2015-08-31|archive-date=2018-10-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181003203035/http://www.peirce.org/writings/p119.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

====Nishida (1870–1945)====
According to [[Kitaro Nishida]], "knowledge of things in the world begins with the differentiation of unitary consciousness into knower and known and ends with self and things becoming one again. Such unification takes form not only in knowing but in the valuing (of truth) that directs knowing, the willing that directs action, and the feeling or emotive reach that directs sensing."<ref>John Maraldo, [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/#2.2 Nishida Kitarô – Self-Awareness] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101204043326/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nishida-kitaro/#2.2 |date=2010-12-04 }}, in: ''The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy'' (Spring 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.)</ref>

====Fromm (1900–1980)====
[[Erich Fromm]] finds that trying to discuss truth as "absolute truth" is sterile and that emphasis ought to be placed on "optimal truth". He considers truth as stemming from the survival imperative of grasping one's environment physically and intellectually, whereby young children instinctively seek truth so as to orient themselves in "a strange and powerful world". The accuracy of their perceived approximation of the truth will therefore have direct consequences on their ability to deal with their environment. Fromm can be understood to define truth as a functional approximation of reality. His vision of optimal truth is described partly in ''Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the Psychology of Ethics'' (1947), from which excerpts are included below.

: the dichotomy between 'absolute = perfect' and 'relative = imperfect' has been superseded in all fields of scientific thought, where "it is generally recognized that there is no absolute truth but nevertheless that there are objectively valid laws and principles".

: In that respect, "a scientifically or rationally valid statement means that the power of reason is applied to all the available data of observation without any of them being suppressed or falsified for the sake of the desired result". The history of science is "a history of inadequate and incomplete statements, and every new insight makes possible the recognition of the inadequacies of previous propositions and offers a springboard for creating a more adequate formulation."

: As a result "the history of thought is the history of an ever-increasing approximation to the truth. Scientific knowledge is not absolute but optimal; it contains the optimum of truth attainable in a given historical period." Fromm furthermore notes that "different cultures have emphasized various aspects of the truth" and that increasing interaction between cultures allows for these aspects to reconcile and integrate, increasing further the approximation to the truth.

====Foucault (1926–1984)====
Truth, says [[Michel Foucault]], is problematic when any attempt is made to see truth as an "objective" quality. He prefers not to use the term truth itself but "Regimes of Truth". In his historical investigations he found truth to be something that was itself a part of, or embedded within, a given power structure. Thus Foucault's view shares much in common with the concepts of [[#Nietzsche (1844–1900)|Nietzsche]]. Truth for Foucault is also something that shifts through various [[episteme]] throughout history.<ref>Foucault, M. "The Order of Things", London: Vintage Books, 1970 (1966)</ref>

====Baudrillard (1929–2007)====
[[Jean Baudrillard]] considered truth to be largely simulated, that is pretending to have something, as opposed to dissimulation, pretending to not have something. He took his cue from [[iconoclasm|iconoclasts]] whom he claims knew that images of God demonstrated that God did not exist.<ref name = "Baudrillard">Jean Baudrillard. Simulacra and Simulation. Michigan: Michigan University Press, 1994.</ref> Baudrillard wrote in "Precession of the Simulacra":
::The [[simulacrum]] is never that which conceals the truth—it is the truth which conceals that there is none. The simulacrum is true.
::—Ecclesiastes<ref>Baudrillard, Jean. [http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html "Simulacra and Simulations", in ''Selected Writings''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040209024621/http://www.stanford.edu/dept/HPS/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html |date=2004-02-09 }}, ed. [[Mark Poster]], [[Stanford University Press]], 1988; 166 ''ff''</ref><ref>Baudrillard's attribution of this quote to [[Ecclesiastes]] is deliberately fictional. "Baudrillard attributes this quote to Ecclesiastes. However, the quote is a fabrication (see Jean Baudrillard. Cool Memories III, 1991–95. London: Verso, 1997). Editor's note: In Fragments: Conversations With François L'Yvonnet. New York: Routledge, 2004:11, Baudrillard acknowledges this 'Borges-like' fabrication." Cited in footnote #4 in Smith, Richard G., [https://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/smith.htm#_edn4 "Lights, Camera, Action: Baudrillard and the Performance of Representations"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180425060347/https://www2.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol2_1/smith.htm#_edn4 |date=2018-04-25 }}, International Journal of Baudrillard Studies, Volume 2, Number 1 (January 2005)</ref>

Some examples of [[simulacra]] that Baudrillard cited were: that prisons simulate the "truth" that society is free; scandals (e.g., [[Watergate scandal|Watergate]]) simulate that corruption is corrected; Disney simulates that the U.S. itself is an adult place. Though such examples seem extreme, such extremity is an important part of Baudrillard's theory. For a less extreme example, movies usually end with the bad being punished, humiliated, or otherwise failing, thus affirming for viewers the concept that the good end happily and the bad unhappily, a narrative which implies that the status quo and established power structures are largely legitimate.<ref name = "Baudrillard"/>

==== Other contemporary positions ====
[[Truthmaker theory]] is "the branch of [[metaphysics]] that explores the relationships between what is true and what [[Existence|exists]]".<ref name="Asay">{{cite web |last1=Asay |first1=Jamin |title=Truthmaker Theory |url=https://iep.utm.edu/truth-ma/ |website=Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=2020-11-28 |archive-date=2020-11-24 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201124032018/https://iep.utm.edu/truth-ma/ |url-status=live }}</ref> It is different from substantive theories of truth in the sense that it does not aim at giving a definition of what truth is. Instead, it has the goal of ''determining'' how truth depends on being.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Beebee |first1=Helen |last2=Dodd |first2=Julian |title=Truthmakers: The Contemporary Debate |year=2005 |publisher=Clarendon Press |pages=13–14 |url=https://philpapers.org/rec/BEETTC |access-date=2020-11-28 |archive-date=2020-12-06 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201206202200/https://philpapers.org/rec/BEETTC |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Theological views===
{{primary_sources|date=March 2024}}
{{main|Religious views on truth}}

====Hinduism====
In [[Hinduism]], truth is defined as "unchangeable", "that which has no distortion", "that which is beyond distinctions of time, space, and person", "that which pervades the universe in all its constancy". The human body, therefore, is not completely true as it changes with time, for example. There are many references, properties and explanations of truth by Hindu sages that explain varied facets of truth, such as the national motto of [[India]]: "[[Satyameva Jayate]]" (Truth alone triumphs), as well as "Satyam muktaye" (Truth liberates), "Satya' is 'Parahit'artham' va'unmanaso yatha'rthatvam' satyam" (Satya is the benevolent use of words and the mind for the welfare of others or in other words responsibilities is truth too), "When one is firmly established in speaking truth, the fruits of action become subservient to him (patanjali yogasutras, sutra number 2.36), "The face of truth is covered by a golden bowl. ''Unveil it, O Pusan (Sun), so that I who have truth as my duty (satyadharma) may see it!''" (Brhadaranyaka V 15 1–4 and the brief IIsa Upanisad 15–18), Truth is superior to silence ([[Manusmriti]]), etc. Combined with other words, satya acts as a modifier, like ''ultra'' or ''highest'', or more literally ''truest'', connoting ''purity and excellence''. For example, satyaloka is the "highest heaven" and Satya Yuga is the "golden age" or best of the four cyclical cosmic ages in Hinduism, and so on. The Buddha, the 9th incarnation of Bhagwan Vishnu, quoted as such - Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon and the truth.

====Buddhism====
In [[Buddhism]], particularly in the [[Mahayana]] tradition, the notion of truth is often divided into the [[two truths doctrine]], which consists of [[Samvriti|relative or conventional truth]] and ultimate truth. The former refers to truth that is based on common understanding among ordinary people and is accepted as a practical basis for communication of higher truths. Ultimate truth necessarily transcends logic in the sphere of ordinary experience, and recognizes such phenomena as illusory. [[Mādhyamaka]] philosophy asserts that any doctrine can be analyzed with both divisions of truth. Affirmation and negation belong to relative and absolute truth respectively. Political law is regarded as relative, while religious law is absolute.

====Christianity====
[[File:What-is-truth02.jpg|thumb|upright|''What is Truth?'' by [[Nikolai Ge]], depicting [[John 18:38]], in which [[Pilate]] asks [[Christ]] "What is truth?"]]
[[Christianity]] has a [[Soteriology|soteriological]] view of truth. According to the [[Bible]] in [[John 14:6]], [[Jesus]] is quoted as having said "I am the way, the truth and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me".

==See also==
{{Portal|Philosophy|Psychology}}
{{Div col|colwidth=15em}}
* [[Asha]]
* [[Confirmation holism]]
* [[Contextualism]]
* [[Degree of truth]]
* [[Disposition]]
* [[Eclecticism]]
* [[Epistemic theories of truth]]
* [[Imagination]]
* [[Independence (probability theory)]]
* [[Invariant (mathematics)]]
* [[McNamara fallacy]]
* [[Normative science]]
* ''[[On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense]]''
* [[Perspectivism]]
* [[Physical symbol system]]
* [[Public opinion]]
* [[Relativism]]
* [[Religious views on truth]]
* [[Revision theory]]
* [[Slingshot argument]]
* [[Subjectivity]]
* [[Tautology (logic)]]
* [[Tautology (rhetoric)]]
* [[Theory of justification]]
* [[Truth prevails]]
* [[Truthiness]]
* [[Unity of the proposition]]
* [[Verisimilitude]]
{{div col end}}

===Other theorists===
{{Div col|colwidth=20em}}
* [[Augustine of Hippo]]
* [[Brand Blanshard]]
* [[Hartry Field]]
* [[Gottlob Frege]]
* [[Paul Horwich]]
* [[Harold Joachim]]
* [[Karl Popper]]
{{div col end}}

==Notes==
{{Reflist}}

==References==
{{refbegin|20em}}
* [[Aristotle]], "The Categories", [[Harold P. Cooke]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;1–109 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', [[Loeb Classical Library]], [[Heinemann (book publisher)|William Heinemann]], London, 1938.
* Aristotle, "On Interpretation", [[Harold P. Cooke]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;111–79 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1938.
* Aristotle, "[[Prior Analytics]]", [[Hugh Tredennick]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;181–531 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;1'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1938.
* Aristotle, "[[On the Soul]]" (''De Anima''), [[W. S. Hett]] (trans.), pp.&nbsp;1–203 in ''Aristotle, Volume&nbsp;8'', Loeb Classical Library, William Heinemann, London, 1936.
* [[Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]] (ed., 1999), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
* [[James Mark Baldwin|Baldwin, James Mark]] (ed., 1901–1905), ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', 3 volumes in 4, Macmillan, New York.
* [[Charles A. Baylis|Baylis, Charles A.]] (1962), "Truth", pp.&nbsp;321–22 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
* [[A. Cornelius Benjamin|Benjamin, A. Cornelius]] (1962), "Coherence Theory of Truth", p.&nbsp;58 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
* Blackburn, Simon, and Simmons, Keith (eds., 1999), ''Truth'', Oxford University Press, Oxford. Includes papers by James, Ramsey, Russell, Tarski, and more recent work.
* [[Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar|Chandrasekhar, Subrahmanyan]] (1987), ''Truth and Beauty. Aesthetics and Motivations in Science'', University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.
* [[C.C. Chang|Chang, C.C.]], and [[H.J. Keisler|Keisler, H.J.]], ''Model Theory'', North-Holland, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1973.
* [[Noam Chomsky|Chomsky, Noam]] (1995), ''The Minimalist Program'', MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* [[Alonzo Church|Church, Alonzo]] (1962a), "Name Relation, or Meaning Relation", p.&nbsp;204 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
* Church, Alonzo (1962b), "Truth, Semantical", p.&nbsp;322 in Dagobert D. Runes (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ.
* Clifford, W.K. (1877), "The Ethics of Belief and Other Essays". (Prometheus Books, 1999), [http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html infidels.org] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091203020835/http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/w_k_clifford/ethics_of_belief.html |date=2009-12-03 }}
* [[John Dewey|Dewey, John]] (1900–1901), ''Lectures on Ethics 1900–1901'', Donald F. Koch (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL.
* Dewey, John (1932), ''Theory of the Moral Life'', Part 2 of John Dewey and [[James H. Tufts]], ''Ethics'', Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1908. 2nd edition, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1932. Reprinted, Arnold Isenberg (ed.), Victor Kestenbaum (pref.), Irvingtion Publishers, New York, 1980.
* Dewey, John (1938), ''Logic: The Theory of Inquiry'' (1938), Holt and Company, New York. Reprinted, ''John Dewey, The Later Works, 1925–1953, Volume 12: 1938'', [[Jo Ann Boydston]] (ed.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL, 1986.
* Field, Hartry (2001), ''Truth and the Absence of Fact'', Oxford University Press, Oxford.
* [[Michel Foucault|Foucault, Michel]] (1997), ''Essential Works of Foucault, 1954–1984, Volume 1, Ethics: Subjectivity and Truth'', Paul Rabinow (ed.), Robert Hurley et al. (trans.), The New Press, New York.
* Garfield, Jay L., and Kiteley, Murray (1991), ''Meaning and Truth: The Essential Readings in Modern Semantics'', Paragon House, New York.
* Gupta, Anil (2001), "Truth", in Lou Goble (ed.), ''The Blackwell Guide to Philosophical Logic'', Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
* Gupta, Anil and [[Nuel Belnap|Belnap, Nuel]]. (1993). ''The Revision Theory of Truth''. MIT Press.
* [[Susan Haack|Haack, Susan]] (1993), ''Evidence and Inquiry: Towards Reconstruction in Epistemology'', Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.
* [[Jürgen Habermas|Habermas, Jürgen]] (1976), "What Is Universal Pragmatics?", 1st published, "Was heißt Universalpragmatik?", ''Sprachpragmatik und Philosophie'', [[Karl-Otto Apel]] (ed.), Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;1–68 in Jürgen Habermas, ''Communication and the Evolution of Society'', Thomas McCarthy (trans.), Beacon Press, Boston, 1979.
* Habermas, Jürgen (1990), ''Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action'', Christian Lenhardt and Shierry Weber Nicholsen (trans.), Thomas McCarthy (intro.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* Habermas, Jürgen (2003), ''Truth and Justification'', Barbara Fultner (trans.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* [[Georg Hegel|Hegel, Georg]], (1977), ''[[The Phenomenology of Spirit]]'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, {{ISBN|978-0-19-824597-1}}.
* Horwich, Paul, (1988), ''Truth'', 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
* [[William James|James, William]] (1904), ''A World of Pure Experience''.<!--Publisher & Place of Publication Needed-->
* James, William (1907), ''Pragmatism, A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Popular Lectures on Philosophy'', Longmans, Green, and Company, New York.
* James, William (1909), ''The Meaning of Truth, A Sequel to 'Pragmatism'', Longmans, Green, and Company, New York.
* James, William (1912), ''Essays in Radical Empiricism''. Cf. Chapt. 3, "The Thing and its Relations", pp.&nbsp;92–122.
* James, William (2014), ''William James on Habit, Will, Truth, and the Meaning of Life''. James Sloan Allen (ed.), Frederic C. Beil, Publisher, Savannah, GA.
* [[Immanuel Kant|Kant, Immanuel]] (1800), ''Introduction to Logic''. Reprinted, [[Thomas Kingsmill Abbott]] (trans.), [[Dennis Sweet]] (intro.), Barnes and Noble, New York, 2005.
* [[Richard Kirkham|Kirkham, Richard L.]] (1992), ''[[Theories of Truth: A Critical Introduction]]'', MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* [[William Kneale|Kneale, W.]], and [[Martha Kneale|Kneale, M.]] (1962), ''The Development of Logic'', Oxford University Press, London, 1962. Reprinted with corrections, 1975.
* [[Hans Kreitler|Kreitler, Hans]], and [[Shulamith Kreitler|Kreitler, Shulamith]] (1972), ''Psychology of the Arts'', Duke University Press, Durham, NC.
* Le Morvan, Pierre (2004), "Ramsey on Truth and Truth on Ramsey", ''British Journal for the History of Philosophy'', 12 (4) 2004, 705–18, [http://www.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/ramsey_web.pdf PDF] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829235557/http://www.tcnj.edu/~lemorvan/ramsey_web.pdf |date=2017-08-29 }}.
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography|Peirce, C.S., Bibliography]].
* [[Charles Sanders Peirce|Peirce, C.S.]], ''Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce'', vols. 1–6, [[Charles Hartshorne]] and [[Paul Weiss (philosopher)|Paul Weiss]] (eds.), vols. 7–8, [[Arthur W. Burks]] (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1931–1935, 1958. Cited as CP vol.para.
* Peirce, C.S. (1877), "The Fixation of Belief", ''Popular Science Monthly'' 12 (1877), 1–15. Reprinted (CP 5.358–387), (CE 3, 242–257), (EP 1, 109–123). [http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html Eprint] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201211082624/http://www.peirce.org/writings/p107.html |date=2020-12-11 }}.
* Peirce, C.S. (1901), "Truth and Falsity and Error" (in part), pp.&nbsp;718–20 in J.M. Baldwin (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology'', vol. 2. Reprinted, CP 5.565–573.
* [[Michael Polanyi|Polanyi, Michael]] (1966), ''The Tacit Dimension'', Doubleday and Company, Garden City, NY.
* [[W.V. Quine|Quine, W.V.]] (1956), "Quantifiers and Propositional Attitudes", ''Journal of Philosophy'' 53 (1956). Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;185–96 in Quine (1976), ''Ways of Paradox''.
* Quine, W.V. (1976), ''The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays'', 1st edition, 1966. Revised and enlarged edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1976.
* Quine, W.V. (1980 a), ''From a Logical Point of View, Logico-Philosophical Essays'', 2nd edition, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* Quine, W.V. (1980 b), "Reference and Modality", pp.&nbsp;139–59 in Quine (1980 a), ''From a Logical Point of View''.
* [[John Rajchman|Rajchman, John]], and [[Cornel West|West, Cornel]] (ed., 1985), ''[[Post-Analytic Philosophy]]'', Columbia University Press, New York.
* [[Frank Plumpton Ramsey|Ramsey, F.P.]] (1927), "Facts and Propositions", ''Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 7'', 153–70. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;34–51 in F.P. Ramsey, ''Philosophical Papers'', David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
* Ramsey, F.P. (1990), ''Philosophical Papers'', David Hugh Mellor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
* [[John Rawls|Rawls, John]] (2000), ''Lectures on the History of Moral Philosophy'', Barbara Herman (ed.), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
* [[Richard Rorty|Rorty, R.]] (1979), ''Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature'', Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
* [[Bertrand Russell|Russell, Bertrand]] (1912), ''The Problems of Philosophy'', 1st published 1912. Reprinted, Galaxy Book, Oxford University Press, New York, 1959. Reprinted, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY, 1988.
* Russell, Bertrand (1918), "The Philosophy of Logical Atomism", ''The Monist'', 1918. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;177–281 in ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950'', [[Robert Charles Marsh]] (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, 1956. Reprinted, pp.&nbsp;35–155 in ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism'', [[David Pears]] (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL, 1985.
* Russell, Bertrand (1956), ''Logic and Knowledge: Essays 1901–1950'', [[Robert Charles Marsh]] (ed.), Unwin Hyman, London, 1956. Reprinted, Routledge, London, 1992.
* Russell, Bertrand (1985), ''The Philosophy of Logical Atomism'', [[David Pears]] (ed.), Open Court, La Salle, IL.
* [[Arthur Schopenhauer|Schopenhauer, Arthur]], (1974), ''[[On the Fourfold Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason]]'', Open Court, La Salle, IL, {{ISBN|978-0-87548-187-6}}.
* [[Ninian Smart|Smart, Ninian]] (1969), ''The Religious Experience of Mankind'', Charles Scribner's Sons, New York.
* [[Alfred Tarski|Tarski, A.]], ''Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938'', J.H. Woodger (trans.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1956. 2nd edition, John Corcoran (ed.), Hackett Publishing, Indianapolis, IN, 1983.
* [[Anthony F.C. Wallace|Wallace, Anthony F.C.]] (1966), ''Religion: An Anthropological View'', Random House, New York.
{{refend}}

===Reference works===
{{refbegin|20em}}
* [[Robert Audi|Audi, Robert]] (ed., 1999), ''The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy'', Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. 2nd edition, 1999. Cited as CDP.
* [[Simon Blackburn|Blackburn, Simon]] (1996), ''The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy'', Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1994. Paperback edition with new Chronology, 1996. Cited as ODP.
* [[Dagobert D. Runes|Runes, Dagobert D.]] (ed.), ''Dictionary of Philosophy'', Littlefield, Adams, and Company, Totowa, NJ, 1962.
* ''Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Second Edition, Unabridged'' (1950), W.A. Neilson, T.A. Knott, P.W. Carhart (eds.), G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, MA. Cited as MWU.
* ''Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary'' (1983), Frederick C. Mish (ed.), Merriam–Webster Inc., Springfield, MA. Cited as MWC.
{{refend}}

==External links==
{{wikiquote}}
{{Wiktionary|truth}}
{{Commons category|Truth}}
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150626133902/http://www.galilean-library.org/site/index.php/page/index.html/_/essays/introducingphilosophy/10-truth-r26 An Introduction to Truth] by Paul Newall, aimed at beginners.
* [[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]:
** [http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth "Truth"]
** [http://www.iep.utm.edu/plur-tru "Pluralist Theories of Truth"]
** [http://www.iep.utm.edu/truth-ma"Truthmaker Theory"]
** [http://www.iep.utm.edu/truthpro"Prosentential Theory of Truth"]
* [[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]:
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/ Truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-coherence/ Coherence theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-correspondence/ Correspondence theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-deflationary/ Deflationary theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-identity/ Identity theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-revision/ Revision theory of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/tarski-truth/ Tarski's definition of truth]
** [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth-axiomatic/ Axiomatic theories of truth]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150626101634/http://www.ontology.co/heidegger-aletheia.htm Heidegger on Truth (Aletheia) as Unconcealment]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20150609001038/http://www.ontology.co/aletheia.htm History of Truth: The Greek "Aletheia"]
* [http://www.ontology.co/veritas.htm History of Truth: The Latin "Veritas"]

{{Theories of Truth|state=expanded}}
{{Navboxes
|list =
{{metaphysics}}
{{epistemology}}
{{logic}}
{{Positivism}}
}}

{{Authority control}}

<!-- do both parties of an argument agree that truth claims are indeed true? -->

[[Category:Truth| ]]
[[Category:Concepts in epistemology]]
[[Category:Concepts in logic]]
[[Category:Metaphysical properties]]
[[Category:Ethical principles]]
[[Category:Meaning (philosophy of language)]]
[[Category:Ontology]]
[[Category:Mathematical logic]]
[[Category:Philosophical logic]]
[[Category:Reality]]
[[Category:Theories of truth]]
[[Category:Virtue]]