|Truth, philosophy: a property of sentences, not a property of utterances because utterances are events. See also truth conditions, truth definition, truth functions, truth predicate, truth table, truth theory, truth value, correspondence theory, coherence theory.
The most diverse approaches claim to define or explain truth, or to assert their fundamental indefinability.
A. Linguistic-oriented theories presuppose either a match of statements with extracts of the world or a consistency with other statements. See also truth theory, truth definition, theory of meaning, correspondence theory, coherence theory, facts, circumstances, paradoxes, semantics, deflationism, disquotationalism, criteria, evidence.
B. Action-oriented truth theories take a future realization of states as the standard, which should be reconciled with an aspired ideal. See also reality, correctness, pragmatism, idealization, ideas.
C. Truth-oriented theories of art attribute qualities to works of art under certain circumstances which reveal the future realization of ideal assumed social conditions. See also emphatic truth, fiction, art, works of art.
_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. |
|P. Lorenzen Ein dialogisches Konstruktivitätskriterium (1959) in Karel Berka/L. Kreiser Logik Texte Berlin, 1983
Berka I 270
Truth/Dialogical Logic/Lorenzen: with the infinite inductive definitions, one can transform, e.g. the semantic concept of truth into a dialogically definite concept.
There are two sets, the
set T of the true formulas and the
set F of the wrong formulas.
If the formulas with the logical particles are constructed from decision-definite prime formulas, then T (true) and F (false) are defined infinitely inductively as follows:
A e T u B e T > A u B e T
A e F > A u B e F
B e F > A u B e F
(correcpondingly for v)
A e F > i A e T
A e T > i A e F
(n)A(n) e T > (x)A(x) e T
A(n) e F > (x)A(x) e F
(correspondingly for (Ex)).
Foundation/Lorenzen: for this definition one does not need ordinal numbers as step numbers, because the definition scheme is "sound". That is, one gets after a finite number of steps to a prime formula._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
Constructive Philosophy Cambridge 1987
K. Berka/L. Kreiser
Logik Texte Berlin 1983