1. In language and thought, there are two types of statements: statements of truth and statements of belief.
2. Statements of belief emerge into being-in-the-language from the state of consciousness in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. The opposite is true for statements of disbelief.
3. Regular language only handles statements of belief. That is, also sentences like “that is true” refer to the harmony between the statement and the individual consciousness, and “that is false” refers to the conflict between them.
4. Statements of truth emerge from the state of consciousness being in accord with reality. This requires understanding that has been reached through a dialogic process, either with reality or with other people.
5. From these follows that statements of truth are true (in accord with reality) regardless of whether they are supported by statements of belief or attacked by statements of disbelief.
This brings me to the idea that is constantly repeating in my head:
P: If Q is true, then it must be true irrespective of whether it is believed to be true or false.
Let’s say someone attacked this with some kind of argument R that said:
R: P is false because Q can only be true when it is believed by everyone to be true. Truth is a social construction.
What R actually says is that truth doesn’t exist outside the social context. This is a valid point that doesn’t really contradict the original proposition but complements it. We should also be aware of the fact that this very debate takes place inside the social context, and we’re actually discussing the truth right here and now. Also, the statement doesn’t say anything about Q actually being true; there is the structure of if-then. This structure opens the way for the social process of dialogue that seeks to find the truth. However, such common understanding can only be found when participants actively seek cognitive harmony.
