Someone asked me this question and I have answered the question in the following way:
Truth is truth.
There are some basic elements and aspects that cannot be defined by further or more basic something. So, truth is truth. It reveals intuitively.
When ‘truth’ is the definiendum, there cannot be any suitable definiens for it.
Still, we can define truth as the opposite of falsehood.
We know, this sort of definition is circular. But we have no other way. We have to start from some point and to assume something from that position.
From this point of view, truth is the default position and any sort of contradiction with the truth-position, we call it as falsehood.
Dear Sir,
I disagree with your opinion. Truth cannot exist in isolation; rather, from an analytic philosophy perspective, truth must be a property of propositions.
The above argument acknowledges that defining truth as the opposite of falsehood is circular. However, this circularity raises concerns about the coherence and explanatory power of the concept, such as the problem of regress. Truth is a trivial concept that can be adequately explained without appealing to foundational assumptions or circular definitions. Your argument, by contrast, seems to attribute a deeper, intrinsic significance to truth.