1 - As the year 3000 approaches, it seems about time that philosophy finally settled the question once and for all: what is truth? The truth can be stated, most directly and conventionally, in the form of factual self-confidence. This is known as the ‘truth’ because it is, in technical terms,
2 - itself ‘true’.
3.1 - An obvious objection comes to mind at this point, as Saul Kripke brought to our attention in the 1970s: what of the case of jockeys? For they own the greatest, most powerful animals (with the exception of gianormous whales and Indian elephants), and yet they are themselves small in size. This objection is most commonly known as ‘Zarathustra’s Paradox’.
In the last thousand years philosophers have produced two main responses: Locke’s “Pigeonhole” counterexample and the Gettier-type excuses.
3.2 - Locke offers the counterexample of mail which is delivered via pigeonhole, offering some resolution, however Locke seems to have forgotten about the exception of the jockey.
The Gettier-type objections can seem almost arbitrary and for this reason most philosophers have chosen to ignore them, a custom I choose to adhere to here, if only for ease of argument.
4 - Many questions remain unanswered, but I do not intend to solve the puzzle of the conceptualisation of truth qua truth in this paper; however, I have high hopes for what future philosophers hold in store - we're definitely almost there.