What theory of truth do you subscribe to, and why?

Quoting Shawn

Do you think coherentism with accessibility relations (e.g. science/empirical observations/mathematical instrumentality) ascertain or determine the world as most evident/accurately according to how nature works? Why or why not?

Otherwise, what's your take on theories of truth given the recent topics about 'facts'? Thanks.

I have a very idiosyncratic take on this. But I'm not sure you wanna hear my accesability to the world and corresponding with it view. Maybe I don't have enough time also.

Turns out I can't delete my comments, so I guess this is just an ill considered place holder until I can flesh it out.

Recall Pierre Hadot’s approach in Philosophy as a Way of Life:

According to Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos.

I would suggest that most of the academic chatter about ‘theories of truth’ are about as far from this conception as you can get. Maybe the modern schools of philosophy which come nearest to maintaining this attitude are existentialism and phenomenology, because in those schools, philosophy is still a lived practice, rather than academic papers in peer-reviewed journals. Maybe it is also found in those popular philosophers that have managed to carve out a career in that field through their books and lectures.

The model towards which that kind of philosophical practice aspires might be considered in terms of phronesis, practical wisdom. In Buddhist philosophy, there’s a term ‘yath?bh?ta?’ which means ‘seeing truly’ or ‘seeing how things truly are’ - which is the unique capacity of ‘the Buddha’ and also those ‘advanced in wisdom’. In Greek philosophy that was exemplified by the sage, ‘ The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul”.

Apologies if that’s a digression, but I had to set the stage for the kind of theory that I feel answers the description you’re looking for, before the thread devolves into the dreary ‘is the cup really in the cupboard?’ type of back-and-forth which usually characterises these questions.

Quoting Wayfarer

The model towards which that kind of philosophical practice aspires might be considered in terms of phronesis, practical wisdom. In Buddhist philosophy, there’s a term ‘yath?bh?ta?’ which means ‘seeing truly’ or ‘seeing how things truly are’. In Greek philosophy that was exemplified by the sage, ‘ The Sage was the living embodiment of wisdom, “the highest activity human beings can engage in . . . which is linked intimately to the excellence and virtue of the soul”.

Im somewhat weary of pitting the intellect or higher cognitive faculties against the passions as per Buddhism or Zen arts or ignorance and lack of knowledge. I say this as an aspiring Stoic-pragmatist though, so I might come off as a hypocrite.

'Phronesis', nowadays, would be best exemplified by what profession or behavior? Is it really all about, teaching?

Reply to Shawn Don't think about it much but I guess I lean deflationary (maybe why I don't think about it), and I've always been intrigued by the prosentential theory. It has a linguistic feel to it I like -- how does this construction work, why would people use it, that sort of thing.

I would like to be more inclined to a pragmatic theory than I actually am.

Quoting Shawn

Do you think coherentism with accessibility relations (e.g. science/empirical observations/mathematical instrumentality) ascertain or determine the world as most evident/accurately according to how nature works?

No.

Why or why not?

Coherentism alone is circular, mostly formal without necessarily corresponding to empirical facts (i.e. the world). Read Susan Haack's work on foundherentism.

Otherwise, what's your take on theories of truth given the recent topics about 'facts'? Thanks.

I prefer criteria, which is performative, rather than "theories" which is explanatory; truth (i.e. truth-making), as I understand it, is useful, not "true".

Given that, my criteria for truth-making, such as they are, make me a pragmaticist with respect to 'substantive truth' and an actualist with respect to 'formal truth' – the latter because it is concerned with 'possible ways the actual world (i.e. "totality of facts, not things" ~Witty) could have been (i.e. states of affairs) or can be described (re: concepts, maps, frameworks/systems)' and the former because it is concerned with 'approximate / provisional results of empirical inquiry (i.e. research programs, hypothetical-deductive models, abductions) and other discursive practices (i.e. defeasible reasoning)' – a parallax view, or two-pronged grasp, of experience (i.e. nature) from the propositional stance. I guess. :chin:

Quoting 180 Proof

Coherentism alone is circular, mostly formal without necessarily corresponding to empirical facts (i.e. the world).

Kind of a caricature of what I described. Point being those accessibility relations...

Kripke comes to mind wrt. accessibility relations...

Reply to Shawn The point is that your "accessibility relations" are merely ad hoc and not intrinsic to, or required by, coherentism. Read Haack.

Reply to 180 Proof

Modally, no...

I subscribe to the truth of Shawn. Anything that differs is probably a lie or at worst the devil's work.

P.S. I mean this post as an example of what could be any philosopher's fallacy, Nothing to do with you per se, naturally as I know little of you. Though perhaps it could be an idle reminder.. and if it so happens to be of use, no thanks are needed.

Though to contribute on the absolute nature of facts, something other than the clearly best (most long-lived) definition that is that which is opposed would be irrational.. whatever works for the time, the moment, or situation. Say gravity reverses itself, the solar system is about to be destroyed by a black hole that so happens to allow objects to pass into it and into the next universe, and some undiscovered force that lifts objects off the ground and into said black hole, but only if significant negative inertia is reached exists. Therefore, the only way to survive would be to jump off a cliff or tall building. This would be a fact in said scenario due to changing of circumstance. Outside of said scenario, it would be utter nonsense.

So 'facts' ie. dependable and reliable pieces of information that can be repeatedly proven (scientific method) are solely dependent on circumstance, a thing we constantly try to ascertain and assess, with great success due to the grandeur or "slowness" of time, but can never truly know. However, "if it ain't broke don't fix it" has surprisingly relevant applications as far as science and research goes it seems.