The English word ‘Truth’, derives from the Old-English Treiewo, [German Treuwaz], with roots in the Sanskrit Dre and Dhr [as in Dharma].
It originally connoted something firm, immovable, the rock of trust, what later regressed to what Academic Philosophers called ‘Certainty’. It was what was approached with Zen’s: ‘Immovable Wisdom’ and so on.
As late as the 19th Century Academic philosophers were coming up with ‘Theories of Truth’ which by that very fact vitiates its end [‘Theory’ begins in Assumption]. The Consistency Theory of Truth; the Coherence Theory of Truth; the Correspondence Theory of Truth and so on..
If you look up modern dictionary definitions you will find explanations in keeping with the times: Actuality, Certainty, Conformance with Facts, Accord with Reality and so on. Each of these terms [‘Fact’] of course would itself require a lengthy elaboration. It keeps the Professors in business.
‘Logic is to Philosophy what Mathematics is to Nature’. So goes the line. For me the distinction has always been fuzzy.
The problem-zone is the point of intersection between Mathematics and Philosophy. Or more precisely, the Mathematician’s application of philosophical notions, the noble intent to come to terms with issues better dealt with if the researcher was familiar with the evolution of philosophical presumptions over the millennia.
There are two central issues. First, the Mathematician’s interpretation of the idea of ‘Unity’ and secondly, his application of the idea of ‘Truth’. Philosophers have racked their heads for a very long time over these two words.
‘Truth’ is largely captured in Logic in the concept of ‘Proof. There are various levels of ‘Proof’ and numerous interpretations of what exactly the word means.
When mounted on the Principle of Contradiction we saw where the Self-Loop does its dance in the previous Posts. So now we’ll take a look at where it plays in the notion of ‘Unity’ [‘One-ness’] in Mathematics, the struggle to define Sets and Classes and Groupings [Cantor, Von Neumann et al].
The inquiry into Unity taken to its limit required immersion into Set Theory [again, Peano pioneered its early application]. And in Set Theory they hit head-on into the Self-Loop.
There are others. The notion of Finiteness [Hilbert et al]; the notion of the Observer: the emergence of Metamathematics; the blithe takes on the notion of ‘Isness’ or Ontological Presence: ‘There is an X such that…’ and so on.
Georg Cantor famously accused Immanuel Kant of being a ‘Mathematical Ignoramus’. This is beyond funny. It was Kant who in his Critique of Pure Reason warns the reader that he may not use his Principles of Knowing’ in analyzing ‘The Principles of Knowing’; See the Posts.
For Martin Heidegger, Truth has not to do with logical propositions but rather:
‘The essence of Truth is Freedom and the essence of Freedom …is the resolutely open bearing that does not close up on itself…
‘Philosophical Thinking’ is the stern and resolute openness that does not disrupt the concealing but entreats its open essence
into the open regions of the understanding and thus into its own Truth.’
Heidegger is articulating what is the template of Formal Meditation Practice. He himself was not familiar with it, its centrality, until late in his career when he was done with his books.
Not-Two 