I wish ordinary language was easer to use... unfortunately it was invented to deal with hunting zebras and gathering nuts not for doing ontological epistemology!
It seems to me we have true/real/exists on one side and false/unreal/'un-exists' on the other.
We use those words but I don't tremember ever learning what they mean how they relate to each other. I've never looked them up in a dictionary.
So what is the difference between something that is true and something that is false?
More to the point, perhaps we don't need seperate words for true, real and exists if we can define term in terms of each other, along the lines that 'the true=the real=the existing' and 'the false=the unreal=the non-existent'.
People have been using ordinary language to constructively discuss ontology and epistemology for millennia.
DPRoberts has it right.If a thing exists, nothing inherent in that thing is true or false. A statement about a thing can be true or false. Perceptions, thoughts, assumptions, etc. can be true or false.I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
I might say "Truth is a property of the real; falsehood(/untruth?) is a property of the unreal". That applies independently of humans.I would say truth is a human concept that defines or clarifies reality.
I might say "Truth is a property of the real; falsehood(/untruth?) is a property of the unreal". That applies independently of humans.
