—“Is Truth then Relative or Absolute?”—Ken Cavallon

It’s a false dichotomy. We use the term TRUE for “agreement on correspondence”,

|TRUTH CLAIM| Undecidable > Possible > Relative > Consensual > Contingent > Probable > Decidable > Necessary > Analytic > Tautological.

As far as I know, all statements remain contingent, if only for the imprecision of definitions alone.

I’ll deflate it further into TESIMONY, DEMAND, and WARRANTY.

TESTIMONY: demand for agreement(x), degree of necessity(y) and degree of warranty(z).

DEMAND: I can hold an agreement on correspondence with myself, with someone else, with others, with everyone, with anyone.

WARRANTY: I can warranty my testimony corresponds to the possible, probable, contingent, decidable, necessary, analytic, and tautological.

And agreement can be possible, personally actionable, collectively actionable, collectively decidable, and collectively irrefutable, and collectively tautological.

We use ‘Truth’ for all those purposes: “true enough for the circumstance.”

The question is whether one uses the truth that is sufficient for the circumstances.

Leave a Reply