the testWhat there is a truth? There is the well-known old question which assumed to nonplus logicians and to lead them or to pathetic reasonings, or to recognition of the ignorance and consequently, and futility of all art of logic. The nominal definition of truth according to which it is compliance of knowledge with its subject is allowed and supposed here in advance. But all question is in that, forelocks to find the general and right criterion of truth for any knowledge.
Ability to raise reasonable questions is already important and necessary sign of mind or an insight. If the question in itself is senseless and demands useless answers, then except shame for questioning he has sometimes in addition that shortcoming that induces the imprudent listener to ridiculous answers and creates a ridiculous show: one (according to ancient) milks a goat, and another keeps under him a sieve.
If truth - in compliance of knowledge with its subject, thereby it is necessary to distinguish this subject from other objects; really, the knowledge comprises lie if it is not according to that subject to which it belongs, at least and contained something that could be correct concerning other objects. Between that general criterion of truth there would be only such criterion which would be correct concerning all knowledge, indifferently, what their objects. But as, using such criterion, we distract from any content of knowledge (from the attitude towards its object), meanwhile as the truth concerns this contents, from here is clear that is absolutely impossible and it is ridiculous to ask about a sign of the validity of this content of knowledge and that the sufficient and at the same time general sign of truth cannot be given. As we are higher already called the content of knowledge it matter, we can express this thought as follows: it is impossible to demand a general sign of the validity of knowledge concerning matter as this requirement contains a contradiction.
As for knowledge of the relation of only one form (laying aside any contents), it is as well clear that the logic as she states general and necessary rules of mind, has to give criteria of truth in these rules. Really, what contradicts them is lie as the mind at the same time contradicts the general rules of thinking, so, to itself. However these criteria concern only a truth form, i.e. thinking in general and so far as they are insufficient, though are absolutely correct. Really, the knowledge quite corresponding to a logical form, i.e. not contradicting itself nevertheless can contradict a subject. So, only one logical criterion of truth, namely compliance of knowledge with general and formal laws of mind and reason, is, however, conditio sine qua, so, the negative condition of any truth, but further this logician cannot go, and any criterion she is not able to find the delusion concerning not a form, and contents.
The general logic decomposes all formal activity of mind and reason to elements and shows them as the principles of any logical assessment of our knowledge. That is why it is possible to call this part of logic analytics which for this reason serves as at least negative criterion of truth as it is necessary to check and estimate any knowledge from the point of view of a form by these rules before investigate it from the point of view of contents to establish whether it comprises positive truth concerning a subject. But as only one form of knowledge, as if it corresponded to logical laws, far it is not enough to establish the material (objective) validity of knowledge, nobody will venture to judge objects by means of only one logic and to approve something about them, without having collected about them already in advance thorough data besides logic subsequently only to try to use and connect them in one coherent whole according to logical laws or better still, only to check them in compliance with these laws. Nevertheless there is something seductive in possession of such imaginary art to give to all our knowledge the rational form though according to contents they also were still empty and poor; therefore the general logic which is only a canon for an assessment is quite often applied as if as an organon to the valid creation at least of visibility of objective statements and thus is in practice abused. The general logic applying for the name of such organon is called dialectics.