going with th easier question first, i do believe that one can logically reason without language. Do you believe that all animals have language? they do reason, at least i believe so... as for what truth is, i think that the following can be said of truth...
truth is contextual, that is, a statement can be true in certain circumstances and not in others
"There are truths on this side of the Pyranees that are falsehoods on the other -Blaise Pascal"
also, thing can be true at some point in time, yet not be true later (i am alive). also, aren't some statements truer within a certain context? i can say my gas tank is empty, and indeed ther is no gasoline, but is it truly empty?
i cant think of a more complete definition at th moment, but i like what came off wiki...what about you?
Whether animals have reason depends I suppose on what we mean by "reason." I agree with you that truth is contextual, as language is quite contextual indeed. I like that Pascal quote. Here's another line in that line: last years truths are next years lies. today's lies are tomorrow's truths. Science itself has changed its mind so many times, and many regard science as the paragon of truth. For me "truth" is a word with many uses. I think the only accurate way to define it is to look at its context, and even this is always an act of interpretation. I would agree that some statements are truer in a certain context.
I'm quite fond of the term "ironist" which I stole from Richard Rorty or from whoever he stole it from. Here's some background on my favorite more recent philosopher:
The central plank of Rorty's thinking was laid out in his most influential book, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (1989), though his scepticism about epistemology (questions about what we know) and external truth had caused a stir when they were first raised in Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature 10 years earlier.
Rorty distinguished between the "metaphysician" - which in his description included all those absorbed by the questions of traditional philosophy - and the "ironist", his preferred philosophical hero.
(Or, rather, heroine, for he adopted the now-fashionable academic practice of using "she" as a neuter pronoun when writing of ironists. A metaphysician remained "he", however, perhaps to emphasise his wrongness.)
The two positions were separated by their "final vocabulary", words such as "true"; "right"; "good" and "beautiful" (and, at a lower level, terms such as "professional standards"; "decency"; "kindness"; "Christ"; "England"; "creative"; "the Revolution" and so on) which were as far as people could go in using language to justify their beliefs, actions and ambitions.
Ironists are distinguished from metaphysicians, in Rorty's view, by their distrust of such vocabularies, because they are aware of completing vocabularies, and by the fact that the existence of the vocabulary does nothing to shore up such doubts.
That was from the Telegraph.
This is one of Rorty's best books. It's direct, not too technical, and brilliant. If you like this, you should move on to his essays.Contingency, irony, and solidarity - Google Books