| Which definition are you taking? As with most dictionary definitions, they're vague and inclusive. They attempt to cover everything (or close to it) with the definition. This is right and proper for a dictionary, but not very useful for analysis. There is a slant towards a correspondence theory, but it's general enough to include other truth theories fairly easily.
Let's look at two examples of true statements to clarify the difference.
a. 1+1=2
b. Gravity is an attraction between two objects that varies according the the inverse square of the distance between them.
In a. we have something that is 'true' according to a coherent set of rules (mathematics). In b. we have something that is 'true' according observation. These are quite different criteria for truth.
Things get even more complex when one looks into philosophy. There are about five major streams of truth theories (correspondence, coherence, semantic, pragmatic and deflationary -- different people give different labels, so this list may not be a perfect match). Each of these has a different take on what is true. I usually work with correspondence and coherence theories -- correspondence looks for a match between the claim and reality; coherence looks for consistancy with the claim and existing things that are known to be true.
The examples you gave struck me as being semantic -- if you change the definition or meaning of a word (eg 'to die'), you can change the 'truth' of the statement.
And, yes, I do appreciate your response. |