Just for the record... jeez, I sound like a broken one...

The formal jargon was introduced by Abra into a simple conversation. If we are to converse using a formal register, we ought use it right. The formal register is not necessary, however is it is being used, it is necessary to get it right. I am content keeping it more simple. Truth is simple. When the conversation gets into personal belief about truth, especially when they're confused with each other, distinctions need drawn and maintained.

When we believe something is true we call it true. When we believe something is false, we call it false, not true. A true thought/belief/claim corresponds to fact/reality. A false one does not.

Simple.

You're wrong.

Pre-linguisitic children think, believe, and know things. They act upon those beliefs/thoughts/knowledge. All of that requires that truth not only exist in the mind of the child, but for it to be put to use. None of it requires a linguistic description.. I've set truth out in such a way that that is adequately taken into account as well, whereas truth as a description cannot take that into account.



You're confusing the map and the territory. You're confusing a definition with that which is being defined. The definition is not truth, nor is it required for truth to be put to use in the human mind.



Not true, Abra. Not true at all. It is obvious that descriptions can be true(or not). It is obvious that we look to see if they correspond. Descriptions are therefore, necessary for verification of themselves. They are not necessary for truth to be engaged by a thinking subject.

You're not keeping that in mind.



The definition is a description. Without descriptions there could be no definitions. It describes that which is not a description. We do not need the definition to put truth to use. Truth does not depend upon a definition for it's being put to use. It is engaged within the mind of a thinking subject before language acquisition. Language/meaning is truth-based for Pete's sake.



This is where your getting it wrong. You're repeatedly confusing verification with truth. We are not corresponding anything, when we put truth to use in our minds. We are putting truth/reality correspondence to use when we form belief/thought about the way things are. We are not corresponding anything when we verify a claim. We are checking to see if it matches up to fact/reality. We are checking to see if the claim corresponds to the way things are. We are checking to see if the predictions about the way things will be at time T1, correspond to fact/reality at time T1.



Rhetoric.

Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.



The same mistake, over and over. We are not corresponding fact/reality with thought, belief, or claims. Thought, belief, and claims either correspond or not. We form those things in our mind by being engaged in the presupposition of truth/reality correspondence. That is exactly why and how correspondence is able to exhaust all uses of truth in both actions and language.



Horseapple. Looks like a reading comprehension problem. Truth is correspondence to fact/reality.

Nothing else is necessary. A statement either corresponds or not. A thought either corresponds or not. A belief either corresponds or not. Whether or not it does correspond to the way things are is not determined by our thought, belief, statements. Rather truth/reality correspondence is necessarily presupposed within it.

Understood. I simply ask for discussion about the topic, not me personally. That is too much to ask at times, I suppose.



This is a philosophy forum. I would expect those who ar interested in philosophy to be interested in doing it right. I mean, we do not go out and play chess using the rules of basketball. Why then, ought we engage philosophy using the rules of rhetoric? The general public ought be better versed in critical thinking skills. If that were the case, the public would not be so prone to believe rhetoric and falsehood, and the world would be a much better place, because the public would be much better thinkers... not so easily fooled into believing garbage.



Call me a wierd kind of idealistic thinker.

See, but I was not doing such a thing. I asked that if one is here to talk about the authors personally, naming them and then overtly making negative comments about their person, rather than simply discussing the content of the post/claims, then they can take a hike.



I'm not interested in someone making broad-based conclusions about another poster. I'm interested in discussing the quality of the claims by putting them up against the criterion of logic and reason. I'm interested in doing philosophy. One need not be a professional philosopher to understand that...

If truth is correspondence to fact/reality, then truth cannot be a description of fact/reality because a description cannot correspond between itself and reality.

That is circular reasoning.

Old Hippie wrote:

To me it is simply numerous posts about someone's opinions.

Whether their opinions are correct or not cannot be determined. The passionate arguments made about an opinion make it suspect because emotion is involved.


Why do you say that correct/incorrect opinions cannot be determined?


Do you have a workable definition for truth that we can apply to an opinion to determine whether the opinion is true or false?

If so, can you describe the process of how this is done.

Only then can we determine whether a given opinion is true or false.

You need to be specific in your workable definition of truth so that we can understand how to use it.



Sure sounds simple on the surface. But how is it determined whether a thought/belief/claim corresponds to fact/reality?

If that cannot be assessed then how can a thought/belief/claim be said to correspond to fact/reality?

I've offered definitions and models for how we can set out to determine this.

Yet you still have objections which I will address in my next post.

I never said that a description needs to be linguistic.

That is your demand. Not mine.

If you have a thought/believe/claim within your own mind, then you necessarily must have a description within your own mind. It is only necessary to put that description into language if you intend to communicate that description to another person.

So you are the one who is confusing a description with language.

I recognize that our thoughts/beliefs/claims are indeed descriptions already, even in pure concept in our minds, long before we attempt to communicate them to someone else via language.

So all I'm doing is placing thoughts/beliefs/claims under the umbrella of a the more-encompassing concept of descriptions.

This way I can use a single work to encompass all thoughts/beliefs/claim. After all, if you don't have a meaningful thought/belief/claim that already describes a state of affairs in your mind, then what sense would it even make to ask if it corresponds to fact/reality?

So all you are doing here is over-reacting to some limited semantic notion that you have placed on the term "description" demanding that it must be put into language or written down.

That is your semantic demand for that term, and certainly not mine.

I'm not going to argue with you about your personal limitations concerning semantics.

That would be a total waste of time.

I'm already explained what I mean by 'description'. I'm simply referring to any thought/belief/claim (or anything else) that can actually describe a state of affairs well enough to be compared with the state of affairs to see whether or not it corresponds to the state of affairs.

If you're thoughts/beliefs/claims do not have what it takes to describe the state of affairs, then what sense would it even make to suggest that they could correspond to a state of affairs?

~~~~~

In fact, that leads us right into Zen Truth. The truth of merely experiencing the state of affairs without having any need to describe it. But in Zen Truth all thoughts/beliefs/claims about a particular experience are indeed true if they are honest, because they all correspond to the fact/reality of the state of affairs.

So I'm covered in both Analytical Truth, and in Zen Truth.



I disagree entirely, and I'll try to explain as sincerely as I can.

I am not confusing the map with the territory. I am simply stating that truth is a correspondence between the map and the territory therefore both the map and the territory are of equal importance and both are required to determine if truth exists (i.e. if a correspondence exists)

Consider the following analogy using map and territory:

The description, or thought/belief/claim, if you prefer. Is the map.

The territory is the actual state of affairs, or fact/reality, if you prefer.

Truth, as you define it correspondence with fact/reality (or the actual state of affairs)

So I ask, what are you testing for this correspondence? What is it that suggesting should be corresponded with fact/reality?

Well, the map of course!

The only way you can even talk about a correspondence with fact/reality is if you have something to correspond to it.

And that would be your description (i.e. your thoughts/beliefs/claims). So if you want to call those a "map" then what you are asking is whether or not the map (i.e. your description of fact/reality) actually corresponds to the territory which is the actual state of affairs (or fact/reality, if you prefer)

Therefore the description (i.e. the map in this analogy) is just as much a part of the process of determining truth as the actual state of affairs (i.e. the territory in this analogy)

You can't place more importance on the state of affairs (or fact/reality) than you place on your descriptions (or thoughts/beliefs/claims) if what you defining 'truth' to be nothing more than a correct correspondence between these TWO THINGS.

Both of the things that are being corresponded must have equal importance. Because it is the correspondence between them that you are defining to be truth.

It's a purely relative situation and you are attempting to ignore the relativity and make it into some sort of absolute situation that depend solely on fact/reality and not on the description at all.

But you can't do that if, by definition, you are claiming that truth is a correspondence between fact/reality and something else. That something else being your thoughts/beliefs/claims. Those are the descriptions that you are checking to see if they correspond with fact/reality.



Excuse me?

What you've just said above makes no sense to me at all.

You state that descriptions are necessary for verification of themselves. What in the world would that mean?

A description is what it is, it needs no verification of itself.

You say "They (descriptions) are not necessary for truth to be engaged by a thinking subject."

But they most certainly are necessary. They are necessary because, by definition, you are requiring that truth is correspondence with fact/reality. Therefore the only way that you can even begin to evaluate whether your thoughts/beliefs/claims (i.e descriptions) are true or not, you must test them against fact/reality to see if they correspond.

They are every bit as much of the process of determining truth as the fact/reality is. With out these descriptions you'd have nothing to actually claim is TRUE.

It is actually the descriptions that you are claiming to be "TRUE" int end! We already know that the state of affairs is always true. It just is what it is. The state of affairs itself can never be "false".

The only thing that can even be true or false is the description, even that only makes sense when compared with a state of affairs.

So it is the description itself that is being evaluated for "truth".

The actual state of affairs is not in question.



I agree that our definition of truth is indeed a description. It's a human concept. A human thought/belief/claim.

However I totally disagree what we don't need that definition to put truth to use. UNLESS your speaking of Zen Truth. Or the pure correspondence between experience and fact/reality. No definition is required there because that kind of truth is not being analysis. That is not analytical truth. That kind of truth is simply the direct experience of what is.

~~~~

Perhaps you are attempting to preserve the pure naked truth of actually experiencing reality with the our analytical approach of trying to verify that our descriptions match reality.

I see where these are two entirely different approaches to assessing reality. And therefore I have no problem in separating them into two entirely different approaches.

1. Analytical truth of logically analyzing descriptions.
2. Zen Truth of simply experiencing a state of affairs directly.

For me, it makes far more sense to recognize these two different ways of assessing reality.

Attempting to meld them together into a seamless whole cannot be done, because one is an experience, whilst the other is an analysis.

In fact, if I were to choose between these two definitions of truth I would prefer to call the second one 'truth' and the first one merely an 'analysis' of truth.

They are two different things. Experiencing reality is truth, analyzing that experience is analysis.

This works quite well for me and clears up the confusion that would plague any attempt to combine these two different approaches into one seamless idea.



Well, you've lost me here entirely.

You state:

1. We are not corresponding anything when we verify a claim.
2. We are checking to see if it matches up to fact/reality.

Well as far as I can see this is a blatant contradiction.

In #1 you are claiming to not be corresponding anything.

In the very next sentence #2 you are stating that you are checking to see if it matches up to fact/reality.

If you are checking to see if something matches fact/reality, then you are checking to see if something corresponds to it?

That's what it means to "Match It".

How can you claim to have a "match" if you haven't determined that they correspond correctly?



You keep repeating that like a broken record, but you also continually refuse to acknowledge just what is is that is being corresponded to fact/reality.

If Truth is merely correspondence to fact/reality, then the Zen truth of pure experience is without a doubt the purest form of truth we can ever know.

Attempting to analyzing whether any other thoughts/beliefs/claims, or descriptions correspond to fact/reality would certainly be a far inferior correspondence.



Again, you are attempting to make an 'absolute classical picture' out of something that is entire relative.

You state:

1. We are not corresponding fact/reality with thought, belief, or claims.

2. Thought, belief, and claims either correspond or not.

All you are doing here is attempting to view 'fact/reality' as an objective truth. Then you are concerned with finding the correct descriptions for that objective truth.

But if that's the case, then you have stated your definition all wrong.

All you are doing is defining truth to be the state of affairs.

You are not defining truth to be a correspondence because you couldn't care less whether anything is being corresponded or not. In your mind the state of affairs itself is already 'truth'.

You're thinking of 'truth' as being an absolute property of the state of affairs itself.

But that's a useless definition for truth.

You have it far closer to how we actually use it when you recognize that truth is indeed a correspondence between the state of affairs and something else, (i.e. thoughts/beliefs/claims or descriptions)

That's what humans mean when they speak about analytical truth.

We attempt to analyze the correspondence between our thoughts/beliefs/claims (or descriptions) with the actual state of affairs.

And that's what we mean by analytical or "logical" truths.

If you want to define truth as the actual state of affairs, then you are better off sticking with the Zen Truth of merely experiencing the state of affairs for what it is.




You are thinking entirely analytically. Apparently you can't get out of the box of analysis. That seems to be all that you can see.

You assume that the only thing worthy of corresponding to fact/reality would be a logical analysis of it.

You've entirely lost sight of the Zen aspect of truth where the state of affairs is being corresponded with the actual experience of it.

You appear to be fixated on the logical analysis of truth, yet you want to treat the state of affairs as if you are evaluating Zen Truth.

~~~~~

When we speak of analytical truth, we are talking about a correspondence between fact/reality with out analytical thoughts/beliefs/claims (which are all descriptions whether written in language or not)

And therefore it is the descriptions that take on the property of being true or false based on our analysis. This is what makes it analytical truth. It is truth that has been proclaimed via logical analysis. And what is being proclaimed to be TRUE is a particular description. We are proclaiming that a particular thought/belief/claim (all descriptions) to properly correspond with fact/reality.

And that's what we mean when we say that a particular thought/belief/claim represents "truth".

We simply mean that we believe it to be a correct correspondence with fact/reality (the actual state of affairs)

This is how Analytical Truth works!

Zen Truth works by going out and jumping in the pool and having a PARTY!

Disclaimer:

All of the above was the opinion of the poster. If you don't agree with it go jump in the pool.

No, I'm not. That belief belongs to you, and it is false.



No, I'm not. That belief belongs to you, and it is false.



None of that follows from what I've written. That is the difference between understanding what it would take for a claim to be true, and understanding what it would take for a claim to be false. Subjective truth cannot do such a thing, as has clearly been displayed throughout this thread, and is being shown once again above.

We could have a crystal clear definition of what we mean by 'truth', and be wrong. That can only be the case, if truth is not subject to our definitions. To admit the possibility of being wrong about defining truth is to admit that truth is not subject to our definition. It does not necessarily follow that truth is objective.



We are fallible creatures, so it goes without saying that I could be wrong about some things. I cannot be wrong about defining 'objective truth', however, because the facts show that I reject the very notion. Truth need not be objective, in order for it to not be subject to our definitions. That is exactly why the terms "objective" and "subjective" have no place in a discussion about truth. It is a false dichotomy. Truth is neither. Truth is connective.

Both of those descriptions, objective and subjective truth, necessarily presuppose matching up to the way things are. They necessarily presuppose truth, therefore they cannot possibly contain it.



Neither do I.



Truth cannot be a human construct. Human constructs are language constructs. Humans use truth long before language acquisition.

That is supported by fact.

It is quite clear that pre-linguistic children possess thought, belief, and knowledge. It is quite clear that those things necessitate truth. Therefore, it is also quite clear that truth does not necessitate language for it's existence in the mind of a thinking, believing, and knowing subject. It only follows that equating truth to a description is wrong.



If this were the case, then whatever truth means to us would be equal to what truth is. It would make truth subject to belief. It would only follow that all belief would be true. That's not the way things are. False belief exists, therefore...

Truth is not whatever we think the term "truth" means.



The equation between truth and a description has already been shown to be false. Therefore, the above is a false claim.



Indeed, it is the difference between rhetoric and philosophy.



Nonsense. I mean, let's think a little bit here.

Defining truth as belief does not make truth equal to belief. Defining truth as a tree does not make truth equal to a tree. Defining truth as a description does not make truth equal to a description. None of those definitions take into account how truth works. They do not take into account how truth is put to use in our minds long before we acquire language.

Semantic arguments about truth are nonsense. They subordinate truth to meaning. Truth cannot BE whatever one thinks it means anymore than thought/belief and reality can be whatever one thinks those terms mean. The necessary presupposition of truth/reality correspondence is the basis of all thought/belief about the world(universe) and ourselves. Thought/belief is the basis of meaning. It only follows that truth/reality correspondence is the basis of meaning. Therefore personal meaning cannot contain truth.

To correctly assess truth, we must assess the role that it plays in a thinking subject's thought and belief about the way things are prior to language acquisition.



It does not follow from the fact that we decide what we mean when we use the term "truth" that truth equals whatever definition we give it. Truth would be utterly meaningless if that were the case.

You've accepted a couple of false beliefs that necessarily presuppose that truth is contingent upon language. We already know that that is not the case. That is a dogma of empiricism.

Truth is not a human notion. Truth is not a human concept. That is clearly supported by the facts in evidence. We put truth to use long before language acquisition. We think, believe, and know things prior to language. We put truth to use long before we ever acquire the ability to speak about it. We pu truth to use long before we know what a definition is. Therefore, truth cannot possibly be a language construct. The logic is fatally flawed.

Truth is correspondence to fact/reality. Application is subjective. Correspondence is not. The opinion either corresponds to fact/reality, or it does not.

Simple.



The process you wish to discuss is the process of verification. The topic is truth, not verification methods. They are not the same thing.



By verification methods.



Are we discussing truth, or verification methods?

Well, this is precisely what I've been saying all along.

There are two entirely different ways that we can conceptualize what we mean by 'truth'

I've described these two different concepts as clearly as I know how to do.

1. Analytical truth.

This is the process of analyzing whether descriptions correspond to fact/reality. That is indeed a process of verification methods.

That is what it is.

2. Zen Truth (or the Truth of actual experience)

There is no verification process required. The experience of the state of affairs directly is what it is. There is no need to verify it beyond the actual experience of it.'

~~~~

So I've got all the bases covered.

I recognize that there are two different ways that we can conceptualize what we mean by 'truth'.

One is to simply experience reality for what it is. (Let's call that "Zen Truth" since it fits in with what that philosophy)

The other is to analyze descriptions (using processes of verifications) to see if the descriptions correspond to the state of affairs in question.

And that is Analytical Truth. The 'truths' of science and mathematics. The process of attempting to verify that specific descriptions correspond with specific states of affairs.

~~~~~

So if you want to discuss "Zen Truth", there really isn't much to discuss. Your experience of your state of affairs is what it is. There isn't much to discuss beyond that.

On the other hand, if you want to discuss what we mean by "Analytical Truth" then you need to get into the dirty business of attempting to verify whether specific descriptions correspond with specific states of affairs because that's what analytical truth is all about.

And that is precisely what the mathematics and the sciences are all about.

So that has already been covered for centuries now.

~~~~~~

Like I say, (and I don't mean this personally, but I don't know how else to say it):

I have no problem with truth. I am convinced that I have a complete understanding of both Analytical Truth and Zen Truth. I understand what they both are. I understand their domains of applicability. I understand what they mean, and how to assess either concept of truth.

So I'm done. There is nothing about the concept of truth in general that I do not understand.

This does not mean that I know the precise correspondences of all "Analytical Truths". Nor does it mean that I have experiences all possible "Zen Truths".

I do not claim to know all "truths".

But I do claim to know what we mean by 'truth'.

And we mean two different things by that same term.

1. Analytical Truth

And

2. Zen Truth

So when I talk with someone who claims to have a 'truth' I try to assess which truth they are speaking of to begin with. Only after I have made that assessment can I begin to understand what they mean by 'truth'.

If they are using the term 'truth' to mean "Zen Truth" (i.e. the truth of their experience) then who am I to question it?

If they are using the term 'truth' to mean "Analytical Truth" then I can address the issues of verification that are necessarily an essential part of that meaning of that type of truth.

Once we get into "Analytical Truth" we have no choice but to deal with verification methods as well as dealing with the nasty business of unproven premises, axioms, and domains of applicability. Aspects of Analytical Truth that far too many people completely ignore altogether.

Exposing the height of a semantic nonsense...

These explanations/justifications are getting more and more ridiculous. The further away from truth we go in our attempt to justify an inadequate definition of truth, the more ridiculous they will become.



You're right! I am demanding that we use our language properly. I am demanding that we put logic and reason to good use. A description necessarily depends upon language for it's construction. A description is a product of language. All descriptions are comprised of words/symbols. Words/symbols are learned during language acquisition. In order for one to think in descriptions, one must first think in words. One who has no language cannot possibly think in descriptions, because they have not learned the words/symbols which make descriptions. Descriptions come through language and language alone. That's how descriptions and language works.

This is yet another semantic attempt to say that the term "description" can mean whatever we want. Twisting the meaning of "description" by equating it to all thought/belief does not make thought/belief equal to a description. If that were the case, then going by the argument you've already given, truth would also be equal to thought/belief. If it takes destroying language itself to justify how one defines truth, then something has gone horribly wrong.

Don'tcha think?



Given the fact that the term "description" was brought into this discussion to mean something other than thought/belief this also constitutes being an equivocation fallacy. It leads to nonsense as well. I'll show that if need be.



Not necessarily. The claim is nonsense prior to language acquisition. THE ORIGINAL POINT WAS that a description cannot correspond between itself and reality. Therefore, a description is not equal to truth.

So, which is it? I'm discussing truth.



Truth is not a concept, therefore, you're talking about something else.

If you have no conceptualization of what you mean by truth, then you have nothing to discuss.

Showing the logical absurdity of the claims...

--

1. However we define truth is "correct".
2. Definitions are descriptions.(fact)
3. Thought is a description.
4. Truth is a description.

We can clearly see the circularity. If these claims were true, it would only follow that...

...truth would be equal to our definitions, which would be equal to our descriptions, which would be equal to our thoughts, would be equal to truth.

Truth is not a man-made concept.

I'm more than willing to discuss that.

Just because we can conceptualize things dose not mean that the things themselves are man-made.

We can certainly conceptualize what we mean by 'dog' yet a dog is not man-made.

In fact, if we want to discuss 'dog' we must first conceptualize it before we can have a meaningful discussion about it.

Same it true of anything material or otherwise.

If you can't describe it as a concept (i.e. conceptualize it), then it makes no sense to claim to be able to discuss it.



In the case of the concept of 'truth'. I'm personally completely convinced that Analytical Truth is entirely a man-made concept. There does not exist any such thing as 'Analytical Truth' outside of our concept of that idea.

What might exist independent of our conceptualization of it would be the actual state of affairs itself. But we are not defining the actual state of affairs to be 'Analytical Truth'.

We have defined Analytical Truth to be an idea of comparing our man-made descriptions with the state of affairs.

That is our conceptualization of Analytical Truth.

Our conceptualization of Zen Truth is the concept of merely experiencing the state of affairs directly. We don't even need to conceptualize that to actually subjectively experience it. But we do need to conceptualize it if we wish to discuss it, and that we do.

Well, to begin with, there is a certain degree of circularity in these things. That's true.

We can't avoid that. That's the nature of implicit definitions.

You're clearly stuck in the rut of wanting everything to be firmly objective. But you cannot achieve that goal yourself.

In fact, you need to create a phantom of a philosophical unicorn of "truth" by proclaiming that it is neither objective nor a concept of the human mind.

So what would it be then?

You're stuck with a totally ill-defined concept (or idea of pure thought) already.

You simply have a man-made concept that makes no sense.

You have an ill-defined man-made 'concept' that cannot even be conceptualized in a meaningful comprehensible way.

You've created a phantom that you can't even conceptualize yourself.

How can you expect anyone else to understand a concept that even you can't conceptualize in a meaningful way?

If you can't describe it to another person in a meaningful way, then what good is it?

And if you can, then you have succeeded in conceptualizing it.

Two things here, the first seems minor however I reject any attempt at objectifying truth. The second is very important to understanding what is going on here.

1. The term "a" is unnecessary and it objectifies truth. Correspondence is not an object. It is a matching up between that which claimed about the ways things are, and the way things are.

2. Looking at a claim to check and see if it corresponds is the act of verifying a claim. Verification cannotdetermine "if truth exists." That is yet another fatal flaw.

Verification necessarily presupposes truth/reality correspondence within the very thought that gave rise to the idea. Truth/reality correspondence already exists prior to verification. What it does determine, for those who believe the criterion to be adequate, is sufficient reason to believe that the claim is true, and therefore sufficient reason(warrant) to call the claim "true".

The only thing that determines if a claim claim is true is correspondence to fact/reality. That is exactly why we can be, and have been wrong, even though we verify things to the best of our ability.

'The dog has fleas' IFF the dog has fleas.

It does not matter if we check to see. The claim is true if, and only if it corresponds to fact/reality.

Are you arguing against your previous claim that truth is a concept? Shall I just sit and watch?



All concepts are man-made. Truth is not.



A dog is not a concept. Point?





Irrelevant. The point WAS that truth is not a concept. The point now IS that according to your earlier claims truth is a concept. All concepts are man-made. If your claims are true, then it only follows that truth is man-made.

The facts in evidence show otherwise.

There are no 'fatal flaws' in my presentation. All that exists is your 'fatal misunderstanding'.

You state:


Well, in that sense the correspondence itself become an 'object'.

It's certainly not a physical material object, but it's a 'object' in the sense of being a precisely defined concept of human construct.

The correspondence itself is the matching up between a claim and the way things are. And the only way that can ever be a meaningful correspondence in the first place is if they claim is indeed a description of the way things are.

What other type of claim would make any sense in terms of corresponding it with the way things are?

So if this correspondence itself is truth, then it become 'a' truth. In other words, it becomes 'a' specific correspondence.

Why are you having such difficulty in understanding this simple fact?

You say:


This make no sense.

It is not the claim that is being verified. What is the very correspondence between a claim and the state of affairs that is being verified.

And that is precisely what you have defined 'truth' to be.

You have defined it to be this correspondence.

So it is indeed the correspondence that is being verified, and thus it is the truth that is being verified, by your very own definition of what truth is. It's is this correspondence according to you.

I have no problem with that. This is precisely how we define what we mean by Analytical Truth. And this is precisely how we go about verifying that truth exists (i.e. that a correct correspondence between our descriptions and reality exists).

It's just a purely man-made concept.

I imagine the whole thing. We imagine the descriptions, we imagine that we can verify that they match up correct with the state of affairs, and when we have imagined that we have done this correctly we call that 'truth'.

That's what we do in terms of Analytical Truth.

It's really a quite simple process to understand and use.

I don't understand why you are so confused about it.

Keep in mind, that you are the one who started this thread asking all these questions. I have no questions myself. I'm totally comfortable with my understanding of these things.

I didn't come to you with questions, you came to me when you posted your questions about truth on the forums.

Let's get that cleared up right now.

I have no problem understanding what humans mean by truth.

But evidently you do, or you wouldn't be asking all these questions.

Analytical Truth is indeed a man-made concept. Pure and simple.

We define precisely what we mean by that.

That's right.