Philosophy and Truth

at that place be many theories on the meaning of truth, and with those theories come beliefs and questions as to why one is more satisfactory than the others. An right-down truth, sometimes called a universal truth, is an constant and permanent fact. The thought of inviolate truths (what they are and whether they exist) has been debated among many assorted groups of people. Philosophers have been butting heads when it comes to the definition of absolute truth for hundreds of years. Alternatively, many intrust in relative truths, where facts may vary depending on the circumstances. (Towart) The possibleness that I will reason as the close to adequate is the agreement theory. Honestly, I dont possess the capabilities to fully determine the most sufficient theory of truth. I do, however, have empirical register and solid reasoning to control the correspondence theory. There are many valid arguments and questions of this theory that I am non qualified to completely re fute. I am only commensurate to continue this age old discussion, not to conclude with an direct theory of truth to follow, save my perception of it.\nThe concept of the correspondence theory swans that a argumentation is full-strength only if the facts assumption match up with existence. (Marian) This shag be a very simple court to determining the truth. The basic conceit is that if, based on my dread of man, the rehearsal given matches that populace then the bid is true. If the statement does not correspond to reality then it is fictive. A statement is a sentence that can be determined to be true or false but not some(prenominal) at the same time. So ultimately I intake past experiences and beliefs to determine my concept of reality. Then, based on my idea of reality, I determine if a statement is either true or false.\nTo say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, or of what is not that it is no t, is true (Aristotle) This was Aristotles belief in...