1) The claim "x" is true
2) "Truth" is an important aspect of inquiry.
To keep parallelism, let me rephrase 1 to 1a:
1a) The claim "x" has undeniable truth status.
We use the term "truth" in both 1a and 2, but do these terms
avctually mean the same thing? I dont think so. I think the
term 'truth' in 1a deals with the 'truth content' of a claim, while
the term 'truth' in 2 deals with the concept of truth per se. These
are quite different things, and really deserve different referent
terms.
If we collapse 1 and 1a, we can talk about 'true' where the concept
of truth per se is held only as a hypothetical, and any actual
version of 'truth' we have via content is subject to the ongoing
and collective experience of correction via inquiry. This is what
Angel and others mean, I think, when they say we use theories etc
to get at the truth, and that we need to consider many other things
such as culture and history, when we try to specify what the truth
content of a particular claim might be.
In other words, when we are in 1/1a territory, it makes much more
sense to talk about whether claim a, b, or c is true, and to
examine, publically and collectively and culturally and historically
etc, what the grounds and the consequences are and will be for
holding that these claims are true.
In the case of 2, we are talking about a theory of truth. Taht
is, we are talking about the role that a concept like truth plays
in our conceptual systems. In the conceptual system of a logical
postivist, 'truth' handles all the work that terms like 'meaning'
and 'foundations' and 'ethics' holds in other conceptual systems.
In a radical consensual system, 'truth' is a redundant concept and
can be replaced by the term 'meaning.'
the catch is this -- as inquirers, we need both versions of the
term 'truth' and it is devilishly easy to confuse them. As an
aid, I suggest that usages 1/1a be framed by the term 'true' as
an adjective, while usage 2 be treated as the noun 'truth.'
sorry to ramble on......
gary shank
gshank who-is-at niu.edu