It sounds like you might be asking 2 different things. First you ask “how do you define truth?” and then it sounds like you are asking “what do you say is the content of truth?” and I think those ar 2 very different questions.

To me defining the definition of “truth” is very difficult without using the word “true” or something derivation of that. I think “truth” has an implicit understanding of something that is “right” or “correct”, but what I struggle with is defining its underpinnings: what does it mean to be “true”, “right” or “correct”? Does it mean to be without error? If so, then what is an error? We have to define one to define the other if error is to mean opposite of truth. However, the opposite of “truth” could be “lie”. But a lie is not the same as an error so as you can see defining “truth” is not as easy as it seems.

Once we define “truth” then we have to determine its content. Or do we determine the definition of “truth” from the content of “truth”?

The content of “truth” could be something that the community (or group of people) holds to be true and from that content we create a definition.

See how this is muddy? ” title=”Razz” />

Anyway, apparently philosophers have been debating this for years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth