This paper has been divided in three parts. In the first one, it is shown how, according to Vattimo’s hermeneutics, true statements are not more than statements justified in an ideal way. In the second one, it is explained how, according to R. Rorty, true statements are not more than justified statements for us, namely, heirs of a contingent lexicon. Finally, what Habermas has said against a conceptualization of truth, given in terms of a justified discursively assertionability, is examined. The author explains how Habermas' viewpoint argues in favour of a kind of pragmatic realism, endorsing the idea of a unique objective world and maintaining its differences from the well known epistemic realism.