You must have narrow idea of what the term "truth" can represent. It seems to me that you are using the term "truth" in a way that it only represents an agreement as to what truth is. Agreements do usually require language.

Example: (Yes, we all agree that this is the truth.)

But then, I guess you and Creative are speaking about language itself, (an introverted view of language, discussed with language) rather than trying to use language to communicate an extroverted view of the nature of reality and truth.

When language is used to communicate an idea or the nature of reality, it does not look at or examine itself, only at the idea.

This is a common view, but one of which that I find cannot take into account certain everyday pre-linguistic facts, as they occur. I would readily agree that the existence of the term "truth" is contingent upon language. However, the concept of truth is instantiated within complex thought/belief formation which begins long before language acquisition. If there are thoughts "outside of language", facts "outside of language", and truth is correspondence to fact/reality, then it only follows that language is not necessary for true thought/belief formation. So, if true thought/belief exists prior to language acquisition, and that can be adequately argued for and/or shown, then it must be the case that either 1.true thought/belief exists without truth(which is absurd) or 2.truth exists prior to language. If truth is prior to language, then it cannot be the case that truth is contingent upon language.

Language, on my view, clearly presupposes prior thought/belief, which in turn presupposes it's own correspondence to fact/reality. Thus, language presupposes truth. Meaning does as well.



Okay.



Indeed, knowledge is accrued.



No, I cannot. However, I do not see how this lends support to the notion that truth is contingent upon language.

Oh, Jb. You're absolutely correct. I was being pedantic.

Di said ---> The existence of truth is contingent on language because there is no 'truth' outside of language,





I agree.

This is not necessarily true. Tarski's meta-language is used for that very purpose. The T-sentence uses meta-language and is quite clearly making a differentiation between the object language(which a statement is made in) and fact/reality(which is represented by the meta-language).

"The cup is on the table" is a true statement, if and only if, the cup is on the table.

Di,

Here is an example of everyday pre-linguistic fact that cannot be accounted for by the view that truth is contingent upon language...

After getting burned by fire, a prelinguistic child will not touch the fire again. The child will adamantly refuse. The child does not need language to take notice of the fire, be curious about the fire, act to touch the fire, nor make the mental correlation between touching the fire and the pain. It is my contention that the child has attributed the pain to the act of touching the fire. The child has mentally recognized/attributed causality. All of this requires thought/belief, none of it requires language.

On a simpler note...

Humans are innately curious creatures. That is a bit of common knowledge. Curiosity requires thought/belief. It does not require language. If we can be curious about things, and we can learn things from exercising such curiosity by acting to satisfy it, then we can learn things about the facts as they occur, and/or the objects with which we interact. Learning anything requires thought/belief.

In the example given, the child has learned something about touching fire. Fire hurts when touched. We know that that is a true statement. The child thinks/believes that touching the fire caused the pain, and thus adamantly refuses to touch it again. That is clearly an example of true thought/belief being formed without language. So, either true thought/belief exists without truth(which is absurd) or truth exists prior to language. If truth exists prior to language, then it cannot be contingent upon language for it's existence.



It is for reasons like this that I reject any claims of truth being contingent upon language.

I suspected that we agreed on the basic matter. I've spent the last several pages with you attempting to get you to put something into language that sets out an example of something, anything, that can be true or false that is not a statement. When challenged to do such a thing, most folk simply use the term "true" in one of the numerous ways that it can be used to talk about something other than truth. Being true is much different than being called "true". The former is not determined by language, and the latter is a matter of how one is using language. So, upon further examination, the term "true" is often put to use to mean something that is just a replacement for some other terms/meaning which have nothing to do with what it takes to be true.

It is a matter of truth-aptness. What sorts of things can reveal the existence of truth, and exactly in what way does it exist?

facts

What makes a fact true?

Real facts are always true.

Is a fact a state of affairs or is it a statement?

A person can claim something is a fact and be mistaken or be lying.

So is a fact, a statement, an agreement, an opinion or an actual state of affairs?

It's your argument. I'm asking you...

How can a fact be true? What does it take?

exactly correct those are the real feelings at the time, however, they are false for the situation

false can also mean deceptive in the context of feelings - to lie about them (we know of course no man on mingle has EVER done that... )

whether true of false they are not statement

I can think of many things that can be true or false but are not statements - down even to the color of a woman's hair

I already answered that.

If it is a real fact, it is always true.

If it is not true, then it is not a fact.

Even if you think your feelings are "false" or a mistake for the situation, they are still real feelings. Once a real feeling is felt, you can't take it back and unfeel it.

Ever heard the song "Unbreak my heart?" Uncry my tears... it can't be done. You can't uncry tears or unbreak a heart.

You can't unfeel a feeling, even if the feeling got there by mistake, so there is no such thing as false feelings.

You can fake having feelings and in that case you are just being deceptive. So while feelings can be faked, they can't be false.

You've not answered...

What makes "real facts" true?

Edited:

Real facts have to be true!
They cannot be false.

But perhaps they also have to be known.

Fact:
1. something known to exist or to have happened
2. something known to be true


A fact, by its definition, must be true.

So, a fact is true, by definition? The definition makes facts true?

You do realize that there is more than one definition of "fact", right? You further realize that it is the case that all of the definitions cannot be called "true" because some are the negation of others?

Definitions do not make things true.