Truth

Isn't it more important to know what is true rather than what is truth? And can't one know the former without knowing the latter? If so, what is the point of a theory of truth, anyway?

Comments

Allowing that we can know anything at all, we can certainly knowthings--that there is currently a red rock on my desk, forexample--without knowing truth itself--that is, without knowing that agiven theory of truth is correct. In fact, I suspect most philosopherstake themselves to be in precisely this position, since the theoryof truth is so thorny. (If you don't want to take my word for this, please read thevarious entiries under "Truth" in the Stanford Encyclopedia.) But thisis really no more surprising than my being able to see that the rock isred without seeing (or knowing) the nature of redness, or of colorsgenerally.

Is knowing true things more important than knowingthe nature of truth? Everyday knowledge has greater survival value to be sure, butknowing the correct theory of truth would be extremely satisfying. Andyou would shine in a room full of philosophers...if you could defend it.

It's only a rough analogy, but just as the fact that we can see things without understanding how vision works does not remove the interest of a theory of vision, so I would say that the fact that we can know things without understanding the nature of truth does not remove the interest of a theory of truth. Maybe discovering a good theory of truth would not help us discover more ordinary truths, but the fortunately the value of philosophy does not depend entirely on it technological applications.

Read another response by Joseph G. Moore, Peter Lipton

Read another response about Truth