Maybe truth doesn't exist?

[Daniel]

We've all heard the proofs for the existence of God, but what proof is there for the existence of truth?

Granted, if truth does not exist then this very question is meaningless, as are these words, and all proofs.
But still, how do we know that truth exists? And further, how do we know that truth exists outside the mind? And that truth is God?

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

Daniel, do you accept the objectivity of truth, that it is the conformation of the intellect with "what the thing perceived actually is"?   If so, the rest is easy..
You've really been going back to fundamentals lately, it seems.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

Your question if haunting me because I thought you were a faithful Catholic.  But fundamentally if you doubt the existence of Truth, you doubt the existence of Christ Himself, Who is Truth.

[Xavier]

Simple syllogistic proof by reductio ad absurdum: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

1. Either Truth exists or "Truth doesn't exist".
2. Assume "Truth doesn't exist" is True.
3. But then Truth would exist and it would be "Truth doesn't exist".
4. Therefore, "Truth doesn't exist" is inherently contradictory and self refuting.
5. Therefore, Truth exists.

Agreed, Daniel, my friend?

Dear Daniel, are you praying the Rosary every day? Kindly set aside just 15 minutes to do that if you're not, and then all these doubts will vanish.

I also recommend making the Double Great Novena, to which the Savior Himself promised, "They will never be tormented by anxiety or doubt". See: http://lapieta.tripod.com/dnov_ena.html

Sacred theology is unlike all other sciences. Anyone can have no interior life and still be able to compute the axioms of mathematics. But in the divine science of theology, if we neglect our spiritual and devotional life and the powerful aids against error and sin that Heaven has given us, we will almost surely fall into some mistake or the other. God bless you, Daniel. Will be praying for you as you struggle through these issues. Kindly do take them to God Himself in prayer as well.

[james03]

Granted, if truth does not exist then this very question is meaningless,

You even prove it to yourself.

So now you know Truth exists.  Continue on and you end up at God.

[John Lamb]

We've all heard the proofs for the existence of God, but what proof is there for the existence of truth?

Granted, if truth does not exist then this very question is meaningless, as are these words, and all proofs.
But still, how do we know that truth exists? And further, how do we know that truth exists outside the mind? And that truth is God?

The existence of truth is a presupposition of thought, because thought has truth for its end/object. If there is no truth, there is no thought either. So to deny that there is any truth is properly a sophism, which is to say, a patently self-refuting absurdity.

Here are the three principle sophisms which the ancient Greek sophist Gorgias (called "the Nihilist") proposed:

1. There is no truth / being.
2. Even if there is truth / being, it cannot be known.
3. Even if truth / being can be known, it cannot be communicated.

All these are self-exploding absurdities which make philosophical discourse (or any discourse) strictly speaking impossible.

[Daniel]

I accept that truth exists, but I'm guess the issue is that I'm not sure that these reductio ad absurdums are anything more than question-begging. If truth exists, then these arguments are legitimate proofs. No problem there. But we can't assume that truth exists, since that's what we're trying to prove. If truth does not exist, then neither does logic exist, and if logic does not not exist then there can be no proofs, and so the reductio absurdums don't prove anything.

It seems that there is no way to disprove the proposition that "truth does not exist" except by proving its contrary, that truth does exist. But it also seems that it is completely impossible to prove that truth exists without appealing to logic, which is question-begging.

it is the conformation of the intellect with "what the thing perceived actually is"?

I know that this is the standard definition, but I am wondering who discovered it and how he discovered it? I'm guessing it's from Aristotle or St. Thomas, so is it derived empirically somehow?
Granting that this is a good definition, there's something I'm a little confused about.
The first thing I notice is that if we accept this definition, and if we simultaneously define truth to be God, then I am guessing that we need to interpret this definition in such a way as to read "intellect" and "reality" as necessary things, not as contingent things. So rather than reading it at face value, as "the conformity of propositions in our intellect to the extra-mental created world", we ought to read it as "the conformity of propositions in God's intellect to God as the object of His own thought"? I suppose then that I see that truth is God (the Word).
But this definition also seems to imply that truth is a relation, not a substance. I am wondering how we make sense of this? I take it that it has something to do with the Son's filiation from the Father?

Dear Daniel, are you praying the Rosary every day? Kindly set aside just 15 minutes to do that if you're not, and then all these doubts will vanish.

I also recommend making the Double Great Novena, to which the Savior Himself promised, "They will never be tormented by anxiety or doubt". See: http://lapieta.tripod.com/dnov_ena.html

Sacred theology is unlike all other sciences. Anyone can have no interior life and still be able to compute the axioms of mathematics. But in the divine science of theology, if we neglect our spiritual and devotional life and the powerful aids against error and sin that Heaven has given us, we will almost surely fall into some mistake or the other. God bless you, Daniel. Will be praying for you as you struggle through these issues. Kindly do take them to God Himself in prayer as well.

Unfortunately I am not able to do any of these things at the moment. But thank you for the suggestions and your prayers.

2. Even if there is truth / being, it cannot be known.

Where's the contradiction in this one? Because I think my concern is somewhere along these lines.

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

Thank you Daniel.  I understand your query better.

[Michael Wilson]

Even those who deny that truth exists, live as if truth does exists and can be known. For example, when one of these people drive their automobile, they know what a "red" light means; they will stop; they also know what a police car means, and the speed limit; they will not go beyond the speed limit, while the police car is nearby. Thus they admit to knowable objective facts; and one could go on and on with similar examples. 

[PerEvangelicaDicta]

good simple point, MW.

Daniel, these excerpts may seem simplistic, but they go to some of your questions.

"Pontius Pilate asked the question to Jesus, "What is Truth".  As it turns out, Pontius was staring The Truth right in the face and didn't even know it.  Jesus Christ proclaimed that He is The Truth in John 14:6: Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me.

The term I AM is the name of God that Moses learned way back in Exodus 3:14:  God said to Moses, I AM WHO AM." And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, `I AM has sent Me to you.'

So when Jesus said "I Am" the Truth, He was really saying that God is Truth. "

"...don't be like Pontius Pilate and question what truth is. Truth is whatever God, His Word, and His Church says it is, not what we may think it is, or what we wish it to be.  Jesus Christ is Truth, and the devil is the father of lies.  Thinking for yourself when it comes to deciding what truth is may seem smart and right, but listening to what The Word says is the better, and only true, path to take.  God sent the Holy Spirit to guide His Church in Truth, not to each individual person.  Sinful priests today do not negate what the Truth is, anymore than the sinful Judas and Peter negated what Jesus taught way back when.  And intelligent people need to discern (a gift of the Holy Spirit, by the way) when people are giving their strong personal opinions cleverly disguised and packaged as fact.  People can be sincere in their opinions, for sure, but also be sincerely wrong."

source: Catholicbible101.com

[John Lamb]

I accept that truth exists, but I'm guess the issue is that I'm not sure that these reductio ad absurdums are anything more than question-begging. If truth exists, then these arguments are legitimate proofs. No problem there. But we can't assume that truth exists, since that's what we're trying to prove. If truth does not exist, then neither does logic exist, and if logic does not not exist then there can be no proofs, and so the reductio absurdums don't prove anything.

This is perfectly true Daniel. There is no real objection to Nihilism except to turn away from it. You can't refute it because it's perfectly consistent on its own terms, and is totally immune to any attack. It is perfectly empty like the black void which symbolises it. When Samuel Johnson heard the view of Berkely that matter is an illusion and only the mind is real, he said "I refute it thus" and stamped his foot on the solid ground. That's because some philosophical positions (sophistical ones) cannot be refuted by reasoning, but only by an appeal to an authority like common sense. You could be a Nihilist. You could deny that all truth exists, that all thought is meaningless, and that existence is entirely an illusion. But then you'd be a position like Michael W. says where you wouldn't be able to drive on a road (or do anything without contradicting yourself).

I really think that you should read Plato, if you haven't already; because while his philosophical method relies very much on reason / reasoning, he is not a rationalist, and constantly makes it known that the first principles of thought and logic are above our reason and full comprehension. It sounds to me like you've be infected with the rationalist methods of Descartes which end in you undermining reason itself by sophistically skeptical reasoning (Descartes was a very advanced sophist and the founder of modern sophistry in philosophy). You may not have read Descartes, but when people try to do philosophy these days they often end up thinking in a Cartesian way because of how much Cartesian presuppositions have infected modern thought in general.

[John Lamb]

2. Even if there is truth / being, it cannot be known.

Where's the contradiction in this one? Because I think my concern is somewhere along these lines.

All three sophisms are patently self-contradictory:

1. There is no truth / being.
If there is no truth / being, then how can 1. be true or exist?

2. Even if there is truth / being, it cannot be known.
If this is so, how can we know that 2. is true or that it exists?

3. Even if truth / being can be known, it cannot be communicated.
Then how can 3. be communicated?

[Non Nobis]

When Samuel Johnson heard the view of Berkely that matter is an illusion and only the mind is real, he said "I refute it thus" and stamped his foot on the solid ground. That's because some philosophical positions (sophistical ones) cannot be refuted by reasoning, but only by an appeal to an authority like common sense.

I like that.  Daniel, I'll pray God will give you a sort of slap in the face, and you'll come to your senses.

[Kreuzritter]

I accept that truth exists, but I'm guess the issue is that I'm not sure that these reductio ad absurdums are anything more than question-begging. If truth exists, then these arguments are legitimate proofs. No problem there. But we can't assume that truth exists, since that's what we're trying to prove. If truth does not exist, then neither does logic exist, and if logic does not not exist then there can be no proofs, and so the reductio absurdums don't prove anything.

It seems that there is no way to disprove the proposition that "truth does not exist" except by proving its contrary, that truth does exist. But it also seems that it is completely impossible to prove that truth exists without appealing to logic, which is question-begging.

it is the conformation of the intellect with "what the thing perceived actually is"?

I know that this is the standard definition, but I am wondering who discovered it and how he discovered it? I'm guessing it's from Aristotle or St. Thomas, so is it derived empirically somehow?
Granting that this is a good definition, there's something I'm a little confused about.
The first thing I notice is that if we accept this definition, and if we simultaneously define truth to be God, then I am guessing that we need to interpret this definition in such a way as to read "intellect" and "reality" as necessary things, not as contingent things. So rather than reading it at face value, as "the conformity of propositions in our intellect to the extra-mental created world", we ought to read it as "the conformity of propositions in God's intellect to God as the object of His own thought"? I suppose then that I see that truth is God (the Word).
But this definition also seems to imply that truth is a relation, not a substance. I am wondering how we make sense of this? I take it that it has something to do with the Son's filiation from the Father?

Dear Daniel, are you praying the Rosary every day? Kindly set aside just 15 minutes to do that if you're not, and then all these doubts will vanish.

I also recommend making the Double Great Novena, to which the Savior Himself promised, "They will never be tormented by anxiety or doubt". See: http://lapieta.tripod.com/dnov_ena.html

Sacred theology is unlike all other sciences. Anyone can have no interior life and still be able to compute the axioms of mathematics. But in the divine science of theology, if we neglect our spiritual and devotional life and the powerful aids against error and sin that Heaven has given us, we will almost surely fall into some mistake or the other. God bless you, Daniel. Will be praying for you as you struggle through these issues. Kindly do take them to God Himself in prayer as well.

Unfortunately I am not able to do any of these things at the moment. But thank you for the suggestions and your prayers.

2. Even if there is truth / being, it cannot be known.

Where's the contradiction in this one? Because I think my concern is somewhere along these lines.

No, they don't assume that "truth exists", whatever that even means. What they show is that the statement "truth doesn't exist" is incoherent nonsense, as this statement is implying that something is the case, i.e., is a "true" proposition. It's like talk about square triangles: you can fit the words together according to the rules of English syntax, but that does not make what is being uttered sensible.

What is "truth doesn't exist" supposed to mean? If it's implying anything, it's making a truth-claim; if it isn't, what is it even saying? No, I'm not arguing that if "truth doesn't exist" then x,y,z, I'm arguing that you can't even gives any cognitive meaning to that string of words.

[clau clau]