criticism welcome!

How do you define "true" in a way that doesn't inevitably boil down to an agreement with reality?

not sure! @cHao

Well, you're literally asking about the possibility of something being real and not true. Seems to me that you'd need such a definition to avoid a bunch of logic traps and at least one very deep rabbit hole.

not sure why this is "opinion based" rather than poorly referenced?

Could you give some more context? I had a question about overlapping ontologies that may touch ...

there's not a huge amount of context, i was just mulling over the difference between truth and 'metaphysics' @christo183

If Reality lies at the intersection of separate ontological domains then there would be ontological 'truth' outside of reality.

hm i was thinking the opposite @christo183 but thanks for getting it

Parts of Reality in principal not categorizable under any discernible ontology? Intriguing. - Or, objects of Reality that are only ever considered "false"? A kind of opposite world...

The view that Reality outruns all dialectical categories thus all instances of dialectical truths and falsities is the Perennial philosophy. Hence Lao Tsu's remark 'True words seem paradoxical'. Truth ('what is the case') would outrun not just metaphysics but language, intellect and imagination. Dialectical truths and falsities are instances of contradictory categories while Reality would extend 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories'. Kant concludes the same from analysis. This view depends on the logical absurdity and falsity of all positive metaphysical positions. .

-4? you guys are nuts haha

@another_name, this sub does run into a problem with ordinary language philosophy, which is that much of what seems like a natural question to ask for someone just getting into philosophy calls on terms and concepts that have specific philosophical forms and literature that they're unfamiliar with. If you're asking a question like this in a philosophy forum, you need to be ready for the possibility that every single word you've just used might not mean what you think they mean.

i know what all those words mean, i am a philosophy graduate. e.g. "Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that examines the fundamental nature of reality" @PaulRoss

"Truth is most often used to mean being in accord with fact or reality" etc. @PaulRoss

Also @PeterJ @christo183; as a general principle, I think it would serve you well in philosophy to be very skeptical of any definition in which "reality" is a substantial component.

i'm not sure i agree with that @PaulRoss the thing that truth is in accord with?