Changes

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

According to Kant, the definition of truth as correspondence is a "mere verbal definition", here making use of Aristotle's distinction between a ''[[nominal definition]]'', a definition in name only, and a ''[[real definition]]'', a definition that shows the ''true cause'' or essence of the thing whose term is being defined.  From Kant's account of the history, the definition of truth as correspondence was already in dispute from classical times, the "[[skeptics]]" criticizing the "logicians" for a form of circular reasoning, though the extent to which the "logicians" actually held such a theory is not evaluated.

According to Kant, the definition of truth as correspondence is a "mere verbal definition", here making use of Aristotle's distinction between a ''[[nominal definition]]'', a definition in name only, and a ''[[real definition]]'', a definition that shows the ''true cause'' or essence of the thing whose term is being defined.  From Kant's account of the history, the definition of truth as correspondence was already in dispute from classical times, the "[[skeptics]]" criticizing the "logicians" for a form of circular reasoning, though the extent to which the "logicians" actually held such a theory is not evaluated in this account.

A careful analysis of what Kant is saying here can help to explain why there are so many theories of truth on the contemporary scene.  In other words, why would thinkers who examine the question of truth not be satisfied to rest with this very first theory that usually comes to mind?

A careful analysis of what Kant is saying here can help to explain why there are so many theories of truth on the contemporary scene.  In other words, why would thinkers who examine the question of truth not be satisfied to rest with this very first theory that usually comes to mind?