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 suppose that, to a certain extent, I was introducing a new idea into the discussion. What caused me to question the definition of "a state of affairs" was your statement that:
I don't think that "truth" (the noun) is the name of a relation...
and I was speculating that truth, even in the sense you meant it, might be a matter of relationships. Not, so it seems, in the way that Night Ripper meant, but in another sense. When the OP stated that:
Night Ripper;170437 wrote:
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.
he was clearly identifying truth with the relationship between the proposition and reality. (I put "reality" between quotation marks in the last sentence, but then removed them. I hope that we can agree that "reality" refers to something that is real. If not, please feel free to imagine the quotation marks back in place.)
When you made your distinction between describing a statement about reality as true and considering the truth to consist solely in that relationship here:
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.
I was led to speculate that even if truth does not reside in the relationship between the proposition and the fact, it might still concern different sorts of relationships in "reality". (Pesky quotation marks...) In other words, while truth
might not name the relationship specified by the OP, it might still refer to other distinguishable relations. That is why I broke down the phrase you used to refer to truth
, a "state of affairs", to point out that it might still refer to this aspect of it.
To give an example to further clarify what I mean (or perhaps make it much more cloudy): Suppose you have a given "real" object: a car. Note that we are discussing a car in general. I haven't even been specific enough for the verbal gesture of typing "the" car. Does a car exist? Sure, why not? But it couldn't exist in a vacuum; or if it did, what would be its truth value? A car isn't true, it barely "is". "Bob is driving the silver car to the convenience store." That could be true, and if it were, it would be a truth before the descriptive proposition was made. And yet this truth entails relationships: between Bob and the car, between the car and the class of silver objects, between the car and the class of driven objects, between the car and its destination. (Hell, for that matter, it concerns Bob and his relationship to the class of silver objects, etc.) Now, if, as you postulated, a truth is a truth without requiring a true statement to be made about it, wouldn't the truth consist in these relationships? I suppose that was my only point, simple-minded as it may seem.
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.
Hmmm, I suppose that I was applying a different meaning of the word "fact" than you were. Of course, "fact" often means "given truth", but it can also be used in such a way as to be virtually synonymous with "given proposition." A minor misunderstanding. But if you want to take issue with it, I'll just direct you to the Dept. of Common Multiple Usage and I will stay out of it.
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.
Well, given my example, whatever its value, my phrasing might seem a little less nonsensical now. Given the idea that "truths in reality" (those quotation marks are irresistible) consist of relationships between things, and must take place in time, I speculate that truths happen. (Or truth happens, take your pick. I prefer the former.) My original phrasing is admittedly clumsy, but I was floating the idea that truths are indeed events. But if you would prefer to extract the temporal element from a given truth, and refer in a sense to the total event, I could also consider a truth to be a type of pattern. So I'm perfectly comfortable saying that the relationship between a true statement and a truth is a degree removed from the existence of the truth's pattern, if that makes the statement seem clearer. I'm not at all convinced that my rephrasing is any less clumsy, however.
Ken, I haven't been an active member on these boards for very long, but I've been on long enough to know that heated discussions with you are rarely fruitful for either party. So if you continue to disagree with my point or insist that I am talking nonsense, I'm just going to stop antagonizing you. I've tried to explain the spur and direction my thoughts were taking as clearly as possible, and I have no agenda in this post other than that.