On Capitalization

I’ve long been adrift as far as when to capitalize characters. Of course I’ve capitalized the first character in a sentence, that rule seems universal in “proper” written english (you see a lot of exception in informal settings like the internet, but I don’t take those exceptions to be diagreement, so much as typically lazy/sloppy/fast writing appropriate to e.g. Youtube comments). And of course I capitalize letters in titles, though there the convention is less universal: Sometimes the first letter of every word is capitalized, sometimes all initials except those of prepositions (e.g. Treatise on Whatever). Other time it is so-called “sentence case”, i.e. first letter capitalized and the rest lower case. I’ve also frequently seen all-caps, but I take that as a sort of cop out, and an alternative to bolding in publications where bolding seems too pedestrian (I read a lot of law journals, but most academic publication seems to avoid bold).

But here I’d like to talk about a different situation where capitalizing comes up: the distinction between e.g. big-T Truth and little-t truth. I think the conventions as they apply to this situation are more significant for two reasons: 1 is that, as in the example of Truth/truth, the difference is often intended to change the meaning of the word. Where failure to capitalize the first letter of a sentence is almost always inadvertent or unconscious, changing from Truth to truth is usually intended to talk about a different kind or order of truth.

But in the context of other conventions about capitalization, the usual intent is exactly backwards. Presumably the convention draws from that used in discussing ‘God’, a specific deity, usually the one followed by the speaker, as opposed to 'god, a type of very powerful being. As the gods of yore coalesced into the God of the monotheistic religions, the word god became the name of the one god, God. That makes sense following the general convention of capitalizing the first letter of a name: ‘God’ is her name, and ‘god’ is her kind.

But the name version of Truth is exactly backwards following that same convention. Big-T Truth is used to mean the realest truth, but that truth would be the ordinary noun truth. To name a thing Truth is to divorce it from what is true: the truth is true, but the Truth need not be. When Truth is named, it becomes a special word that is part of a specialized vocabulary. It is a term of art.

And that fits convention everywhere else. Capitalizing Truth is often intended to indicate a certain reverence, but in doing so it’s defining the referent away from what is intended, namely the thing called out by the plain, ordinary truth.

Having spent most of my time here in the religious section I find that my capitalization of the word “god”/“God” is inconsistent even though I know what each one means. I guess it’s because sometimes I’m not certain myself which one is being discussed. I mostly use the God with the capital G lately I think.

I was with you until that underlined part. How does the Truth need not be true?

I think Truth, with the capital T, is meant to signify a sort of an encompassing truth about everything, the sum of all truths, consisting exclusively of true statements. Perhaps in the sense that it isn’t a statement itself it doesn’t (or, moreover, can’t) be true (or false) in the conventional sense, but its parts still have to be true in order for it to be called “Truth”.

In my view, “truth” is at most a god’s truth, where other gods can have different truths; whereas “Truth” is God’s truth, like “the Queen’s English”.

Why was this moved to Society, Government, and Economics? Did a mod get drunk or am I missing something?

Writing truth with a capital T seems to be an equal and opposite reaction to those who write truth in scare quotes. I’ve little time for either of them.

Take a religion of which you are not a follower. It is coherent to talk about the Truths revealed by that religion’s holy books, even if there is debate about whether or not those Truths are actually true. They are Truths as a part of a domain-specific language and an expression of the central dogmas of the faith, while they may or may not be true as part of the concept of truth, i.e. a high degree of correspondence to reality (or some such formulation).

That’s interesting, because I seem to recall you feeling differently about a similar question. (Also, belatedly, I apologize for the mild trolling I did at the very end of the linked thread 8-[ )

Emmmm … no.

Capitalization of nouns implies the definitive or categorical article, not merely a special or particular instance. The word “dog” refers to any dog. The word “Dog” refers to the very essence or definition of the category “dog”. Proper names are capitalized for that same reason. A person is unique and thus the very essence and definition of his identity.

The word “truth” refers to any truth. The word “Truth” refers to the very essence or definition of the category “truth”. “The truth” might refer to the statement, “Many apples are green”. But “The Truth” refers to the very concept of what truth is defined to mean, the definitive article. The word “God” is capitalized for that same reason - the one and only essence and definitive article of what a god is, thus above which, there can be none.

As this new age of darkness grows even darker (the ability for people to think diminishes even more and socialism grows stronger), such understandings will gradually be replaced by emotive based, ignorant, and such supposed misunderstandings as the one you suggested.

Differently? I think my position here and my position in the linked thread is solidly in the ‘against bad grammar for ideology’ camp, right? I’d be interested in the inconsistency you are seeing.