It seems to be that there are multiple different meanings that can be drawn from the question of “what is truth?” It also seems to be that no single take on that question can be deemed as indisputably correct. Whether in search of the meaning of “truth” or of the meaning of “Truth” the discussion will always boil down to there not being clear cut distinction or boundary between true and false.

This last statement is applicable to the Liar’s Paradox, where the paradox analyzes the logic behind statements such as “this sentence is a lie;” the contentious point being to try and decipher whether it is true that the sentence is a lie and therefore the sentence is false, or whether the sentence’s being true means that the sentence lies about it itself being a lie and is, in fact, true. It seems less applicable to say that there is not a clear cut boundary between truth and falsehood, however, with such statements as “it is true that the Earth is round.” On the contrary, in this case it seems very clear cut that it is in fact true that the Earth is round. No one can argue otherwise without quickly being shown contradictory proof (barring any sort of infinite regress of truth in the epistemological sense, which is not a practical argument in this sense as that would only dispute that we cannot be aware of truth, not that truth exists or that it is able to be known). The point remains, however, that there are situations in which true and false are not easily discernible.

What, then, is it that differentiates the truth of statements such as “this sentence is a lie” and “it is true that the Earth is round?” Some may argue that the difference here is that both statements refer to a different type of truth, while others may argue that the two statements simply refer to two different situations in which the contention is in the situation itself, not in the truth value of