Below there are 5 links to truth discussions, none of them offer any clues to any absolute truth, as truth in essence is very subjective

If a true assertion is an accurate description of a fact and a fact is an existing state of affairs (something similar to Night Ripper's opening thesis), then, in order to conclude that there are no absolute truths, one needs the hypothesis that there are no absolute states of affairs. If my wife says to me "it's raining", then I have useful information with regard to my choice of clothing, so, I would class a state of affairs which is rain, as an absolute. Maybe this is subjective, but isn't this employment of accurate descriptions one of the most common and useful functions of human language?

If you define your whole life with just 1 truth, when you have a strange life.

Life is much more than just "is it raining, or not raining", you need a broader definition of truth.

I dont.Are you suggesting that it is a fact that life is much more than whether or not it's raining? That seems obvious to me, and it means that you've expressed a truth, according to my definition. How does my definition lack breadth?

Well, to debunk your definition, infact I have experienced people saying it rains, when I looked out the window, it had stopped raining, thus the anology is nullifyed.

How the hell does that nullify my definition?

Simply saying it's an urelyable definition.

At the time when your informant asserted "it's raining", there was a state of affairs. There are two possible cases concerning that state of affairs:
1) it was raining
2) it was not raining.
In the case of 1, the assertion was true, in the case of 2 the assertion was not true, according to my definition. What's unreliable about this? and how does it lack breadth?

To any postulation, there must be a confirmation by proof, else anyone can come postulating anything.

Are you saying that neither of the statements:
1) there is life on Venus
2) there is no life on Venus
is true, but that one would become true if a fact was established?

ughaibu;171061 wrote:

Are you saying that neither of the statements:
1) there is life on Venus
2) there is no life on Venus
is true, but that one would become true if a fact was established?

a statemen becomes true if proofed

The concept of "truth" is a relationship. It is similar to the concept of "above" in that respect. Long before humans existed, and therefore before there were any concepts at all, there were still things above other things "out there" in the world, the mountain above the valley, the sky above the ocean, and the clouds above the ground. Each of these things above other things is an instance of the concept "above". These instances are what first prompted our ancestors to abstract away the concept of "above". Several different examples of things above other things were categorized and filtered down to their core "above"-ness.

In the same way that there were things already above other things before the concept of "above" existed, so too were there propositions that were true (or false) before the concept of "truth" existed. It's these instances that provided examples from which to abstract away the concept of "truth". The proposition "it is raining" when it is raining, the proposition "water is wet" and the proposition "all bachelors are unmarried men" are each instances of truth and from them we can abstract away the concept of the relationship they each share in common.

Truth is that relationship, a relationship between a proposition and actuality. When a proposition is true it reflects the way things are, it captures something about the world or about our conventions.

To any postulation, there must be a confirmation by proof, else anyone can come postulating anything.

I don't think that "truth" (the noun) is the name of a relation, but that "true", the adjective is. A truth (also called, "a fact", also called, "a state of affairs") is what makes a true (adjective) proposition, true. And to say of a sentence (or sometimes, a belief) that that sentence is true is to say that the sentence has particular relation to a truth (fact, state of affairs). But a truth (the noun) is a "truth-maker". It is what, if it exists, makes a what is true, true. It is confusing, I think, for "true" to name a relation, and "truth" to name just a term in the relation, but that is, it seems to me, what is true, and is a truth.

Perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I'm not sure I entirely agree. I can see your distinction between the adjective "true" and noun "truth" being useful in certain cases, however...doesn't "state of affairs" basically mean something like "web of relationships"? To what else do the "affairs" in the phrase refer? And must a fact be true to be considered a fact? "The sky is plaid today" is a fact. It just happens to be untrue (at least where I am.) The truth value of a fact seems to be determined precisely by it's relationship to other facts.

Now if the relationship between a true statement and a truth is a degree removed from the event of truth's happening, that seems completely tenable to me.

I don't see what kind of thing a state of affairs is has to do with its being what makes true statements true. If a state of affairs is what makes a true statement true, then what difference does it make what a state of affairs is?

I don't think that "truth" (the noun) is the name of a relation...

The concept of "truth" is a relationship....In the same way that there were things already above other things before the concept of "above" existed, so too were there propositions that were true (or false) before the concept of "truth" existed...The proposition "it is raining" when it is raining, the proposition "water is wet" and the proposition "all bachelors are unmarried men" are each instances of truth and from them we can abstract away the concept of the relationship they each share in common.

Truth is that relationship, a relationship between a proposition and actuality. When a proposition is true it reflects the way things are, it captures something about the world or about our conventions.

A truth (also called, "a fact", also called, "a state of affairs") is what makes a true (adjective) proposition, true. And to say of a sentence (or sometimes, a belief) that that sentence is true is to say that the sentence has particular relation to a truth (fact, state of affairs). But a truth (the noun) is a "truth-maker". It is what, if it exists, makes a what is true, true.

The phrase "true fact" is a redundancy. There are no such things as false facts, and "false facts" is a contradiction in terms. If it is untrue that the sky is plaid today, then how could it be a fact that it is plaid today? "It is false that the sky is plaid today, but it is true that the sky is plaid today" is pretty clearly a contradiction.

I don't understand your final sentence. What does, "the event of a truth's happening" mean? What can it mean for a truth to happen? "Truth" is not the name of an event, and only events happen. Therefore, truths do not happen. Perhaps you are confusing: 1. it is true that E (an event) happened (which, of course, makes sense) with 2. the happening of E is (was, will be) true, which makes no sense.

I'll take that as a "yes". Further, I'll assume that your assertion that an assertion becomes true when proved to be the case, is itself, not true until proved to be the case. Can you prove that an assertion only becomes true when proved to be the case?