Reflective Note (1): Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The Correspondence Theory of Truth”

After looking at the Correspondence Theory of Truth, it is clear that one of its main aims is to explain truth in a way that it is a relationship between propositions and facts. “Snow is white” is a simple sentence or case that the theory says is, in fact, true if it corresponds to the fact that snow is white. As seen in the reading, things can get tricky when trying to determine and pin down what exactly is and is not a fact. For example, do “Brutus stabbed Caesar” and “Caesar was stabbed by Brutus” correspond to the same fact, or are they distinct? Are these two different facts? If even the slightest rephrasing or generalization counts as a separate fact, it appears that facts seem almost impossible to count and difficult to categorize. Critic Donald Davidson points out that facts indeed are the true statements themselves and do not exist as independent entities.  

This raises a question: if facts are indeed supposed to be grounded in the truth of propositions, yet we cannot clearly define or count facts without thus appealing back to said propositions, does the Correspondence Theory risk becoming circular reasoning?