OK OK I'd say no. I'd say yes. I'd say yes. I'd say yes. Exactly! They were never true. They were treated as true, regarded as true, but they were in fact errors of understanding — not falsehoods, not lies, just misunderstanding ... They may signal the truth ... like sexual reproduction, say, the ancients' idea of the process is way off the mark, but there was a germ of truth in there, I mean, they knew where to put the willy ... Not quite. I see truth as a concept proven, by virtue of things that are true. 'This' is true ... 'that' is true ... but 'this' is not 'that', therefore 'truth' is common to them both, but it is not them (there are are truths). 'The Truth' then is the totality of all that is true. I'd say then that 'The Truth' is a concept, but it's not a value judgement, it's a self-evident fact. But when we start talking about 'The Truth' as an objective something, rather than in reference to particular things, then we're into conceptual structures, and when we talk about One Eternal Truth, then I would have thought very much so ... ? To me, 'One Eternal Truth' is like Plato's idea of The Good), a religious ideal, a holistic cosmic viewpoint — some truths encompass other truths, like the conservation of mass, or E=MC squared, but I hope you can see that my (and Plato's) idea of 'The Truth' is somewhat different than an all-encompassing scientific dictum like the conservation of mass, or the space-time continuum, both of those are facts. That is how it seems to me. That's how we make sense of experience, and can says things like dinosaurs existed, that is true, but unicorns don't. (Knowing my luck, someone will have just discovered a fossilised skeleton ... ) Dinosaurs are real, just not currently ... OK. Let me simplify. Something exists. Therefore I can say it is real, it exists — it has presence in the world; Therefore it is true, in that it is what it is — it's nature, it's way of being in the world. (No matter how big a dick or a despot someone might be, that someone is, is true.) Ditto. I'm saying 'existence' has certain qualities, that is aspects(?), by which we determine that something exists. Its actuality. Can I ask, at the risk of a massive diversion, how you see the difference between 'concept' and 'value judgement', does not one derive from the other? Ah, we might be getting to the nub of it here. All along I have been working from the idea that Truth is a concept/value judgement proven by the facts (at which point it ceases to become a concept, a value judgement, and is a fact — but Truth as a Reality in substance, no. A bit like colour: Tomatoes are Red. Apples are red. Blood is red. Therefore 'redness' is real, is true, exists as a frequency on the spectrum of light, is something they all have in common, but does 'red' exist as a substance in its own right, no. Does that make things any clearer?