The metaphysical version of Thomas Aquinas is the most famous: “Veritas is adaequatio rei and intellectus” (truth is the equation of the thing and the intellect) which he asserts as follows: “A judgment is called true when it corresponds to the external reality.” It tends to use “conformitas” and “adaequatio” but also “korrespontia,” which gives the latter a more general meaning (De Veritate, Q.1, A.1-3; cf. Summa Theologiae, Q.16). Aquinas attributes this definition to the neoplatonist Isaac Israeli, but there is no such definition in Isaac. The formulations of correspondence can be traced by the academic skeptic Carneades, 2nd century B.C. whose Sextus Empiricus (Adversos Mathematicos, vii, 168) reports that a presentation “is true if it corresponds to the object presented (Symphonos) and false if it corresponds to it.” Similar reports can be found in several early commentators on Plato and Aristotle (see Konne 2003, Chap. 3.1), including some neoplatonists: Proklos (In Tim., II 287, 1) speaks of truth as the agreement or adaptation (epharmoge) between knowledge and the familiar. Philoponus (In Cat., 81, 25-34) emphasizes that truth is neither in things or states of things (Pragmata) itself, nor in the testimony itself, but in the agreement between the two. It gives the parable of the matching shoe, the fit that consists of a relationship between the shoe and the foot, not to be in one of the two. Note that his focus on the relationship, contrary to his relata, is laudable, but potentially misleading, because x`s truth (his true) should not be identified with a relationship, R, between x and y, but with a general relational property of x that takes the form (∃y) (xRy -Fy). Other earlier formulations of correspondence can be found in Avicenna (Metaphysica, 1.8-9) and Averroès (Tahafut, 103, 302). They were introduced into the scholastic by Guillaume d`Auxerre, who could have been the intentional beneficiary of Aquina`s erroneous imputation (cf.
Boehner 1958; Wolenski 1994). Rather than changing the knowledge of JTB by adding a fourth condition, some epistemologists see the animal problem as a reason to look for a significantly different alternative. We found that knowledge should not include happiness, and that bull-like examples are those where happiness plays a role in the formation of true legitimate faith.