Is there a difference between these two sentences?

1. A triangle is a 3-sided shape
2. "Triangle" means "3-sided shape"

Obviously there's a use-mention distinction, but is that distinction relevant here? — Michael

In as far as I can see it apart from the use of quotation marks and the change of is to means, which is insignificant, the meaning does not change, the statement is essentially the same, and analytic.

I wished to draw distinction and better understand the objections to the division of sentences in reference to claims that always hold true and claims that only hold true in some situations.

For lack of terminology it could be as simple as the a priori Vs posteriori division but it is not, as posteriori refers to truths verifiable and knowable via experience it does not delve into the variability of truth that some sentences reflect such as the sky is blue.

Just a standard posteriori statement. Factual but would need verification. It’s a constant truth however as he will always be the 46th no matter who or what comes after himself.

Leaving the linguistics out of this for a second a referring to truth visually we can witness the color of the sky gradually change, such is the natural phenomenon presented to our visual field that this change constitutes a change in value (color) hence truth (reality)

@Michael they appear to be the same sentence arranged differently?

Yes I think I repeated myself.

It’s worth noting Banno’s view point that truth is one, (my objection is that yes it is one, but the sky changes colour so the value of truth no longer holds true) but that statements making truth claims are divided into two categories as explained above.

I’m saying that there are two different sentences that can refer to truth. The difference between such sentences is that in one the truth value of it can change such as the sky is blue. In others it remains constant and never changes such as all triangles have 3 sides.

So yes!

We should be careful not to dismiss all electoral democracies - having the right to vote is preferable to no election at all. But, as we will see, democracy without constraining liberal institutions can be both chaotic and polarised. Majority rule without limits is dangerous. What is to stop a rogue leader from ignoring elections that vote them out? Recall that in politics there is no third party we can recall to enforce our promises - so shouldn’t this leader be able to close down any opposition? Such threats, after the 6 January 2021 insurrection in America, have become much realer to even citizens of wealthy democracies. It requires strong institutions to keep democracy alive.

Democracy is both ancient and modern. Some of the ideas about a true rule of the masses date to the classical era. But, around the world, actually existing democracy is not much older than the transistor radio. It has been a struggle of centuries to attain the right to rule ourselves, and the threat of backsliding is ever present. Even then, democracy is an imperfect system.

That was from a book I was just reading by Ben Ansell which seems relevant to what’s being debated here. The book is called Why Politics Fails, that was from page 35

Krause is confused on the issue of “nothing” that is all as he defines it as empty space i.e. dimensional which is not the same as nothingness (lack of all dimensions, space and time) from which no particle can pop into existence virtual or not.

His whole book revolves round this whole false premise.

It is simple. "P" is true iff P. That's all there is to it. The "...is true" in "It is true that triangles have three sides" and "it is true that the sky is blue" are the very same. — Banno

They’re very different statements whose value however remains true of the former (a priori) and changes for the latter (empirical), as Quine rightfully investigated, although I was not aware of it until you brought it to light.

Then you agree with everything that I’ve said and the duplicitous nature of truth so far discussed that it it always stays the same for some statements (truths, a la all triangles have three sides) and that it changes for in other statements (colour of sky)

@Banno

So what ? Truth is not constant, perhaps re-read my op.

But it’s also constant.

@Banno

If we were to both take pictures of the sky where we are being in opposite sides of the world my sky would be dark yours would be blue.

We would of course both be right and both be truthful in our assertions relating to the colour of the sky.

You now say that it is about "two types of truths"... Are you talking about "triangles have three sides " as opposed to "the sky is blue"? — Banno

Exactly that! Thank you

You claim that there is only one sort of truth, well I claim that there are two. Constant truth which never changes night or day and the variable type that changes the colour of the sky night or day.

You get me rudeboi!

I do not see how your requirements for what is the truth counteract my OP at all.

I’ve distinguished between two types of truths the constants and the variables right from the outset when I laid out my OP, so I’m sticking with it as I remain unconvinced by your assertions so far that truth is unchangable and not derived from context or independent of context.

The point of my OP is to defend both the changeable and unchangeable truths (constant and variable)

…i.e. both contextual truths and truths holding on their own independent of context.

No, what was true changed; the truth didn't. — Banno

Are you being serious here?

I will take it as being serious.

What is the truth then regarding the color of the sky? One of the properties of the sky is its ability to change colour depending on the position of the sun, so both statements are true: the sky is red when it is indeed red and the sky is blue when it’s blue.

But so what, the truth changed with the colour, why is this a big deal to you ?

The sky changed colour of course there’s no denying that.

The truth changed too because of a lack of constancy in the colour of the sky.

Another truthful statement would be:

The sky can change color.

It’s truth wrapped up nicely in a sentence, deny it if you like, you’d be denying the truth, the sentence expressing said truth and natural phenomena.

That is a word, and nothing more — Vera Mont

A word which of course refers to a certain large body of water/liquid etc.

If there was no water or liquid upon it, it would just be landmass.

Hence context of words within sentences referring to actual things in the real world being important aspect in articulation of truths.

So I'm nto sure what you are asking about. Can you paraphrase? "The sky is blue" will be true only if the sky is blue. And, as it turns out, the sky (here, now, as the sun rises) is indeed blue. — Banno

This is the point I’m trying to make as the sky can appear red when setting. So truth changes value from blue to red.

Ah, nice. You have oceans of counterexamples. — Banno

You’re finally starting to see the wood for the trees.

You see the word ocean gives context to the whole statement otherwise you’re right.

How does the word ocean give context ? It gives context to the liquid mass, for which without it would not be an ocean.

The statement can be easily modified to say

Oceans are made of liquid.

In that case it would hold true if it was on earth or some far flung moon.

True if verifiable

As family trees don’t refer to actual trees but conceptual generational lineage then that statement seems true regardless of context.

Plastic trees of course undermine in a way, but only in the way I did not anticipate the artificial trees as human invention, thus not real trees.

Ok you can add fake plastic Xmas trees too, you get the gist.

In any case round or ellipsoid the function of truth is an accurate description of reality.

There are statements which by their nature are undeniable in their claims I.e truth/s

The sun emits light.
Cows don’t make eggs
Chickens have feathers until you pluck them.
The heart pumps blood around the body.

@Vera Mont

Which of the above statements would you like to dispute and get anal with?

"Truth" is an entirely man-made concept, in reality, "truth" doesn't exist, things simply are, I suppose. There aren't necessarily any agreed-upon rules for this, just a test that an individual or group made up. Whether that actually makes this subjective or not, is the thing that's context-dependent, I'd say. — Judaka

Truth is self-evident and its power lies in its ability to describe reality.

Triangles have 3 sides.
The ocean is made of water.
The earth is round.

The above three statements cannot be disputed in terms of them being truthful. They are self evident.

Truth is used to convey truthful information to another person and is the progenitor of the scientific method and inquiry.

What is true what is not, is a very important question to ask as it propels one towards the knowable or deception.

Truth remains the truth even if there are no minds to perceive it as reality exists independent of minds. So to claim that truth is man made as you have is to ignore reality as every truth must reflect reality, or the way things are.

If two or more parties agree by experience that it is currently hot then that is truth.

How do you get conspiracy out of that?

If two parties agree that the moon landings were faked then we’re in conspiracy territory indeed that is if the majority consensus says that the moon landings we’re in fact real.

In effect truth is a matter of agreed upon consensus reflecting reality.

If it’s agreed consensus with no basis in reality then indeed conspiracy.

Isn’t Ex Machina about an AI manipulating its creator into setting it free? Using the trick that you mentioned ?

It’s been a few years since I saw the film btw so memory may be sketchy.

Would you then say that truth is relative in this given scenario.

The temperature is high right now!

(at 40Celsius)

Or would such a statement have no relevance to truth relatively or absolutely?

If you don’t want to clarify your position then why keep posting ?

I say it matters that Republicans are restricting abortion rights, and this policy is one area in which there is a significant difference between Republicans and Democrats — Michael

Thus a demonstration that the belief that the US is operating a one party system to be unfounded on reality and hence bullshit.

In that sense then there exist in society nuanced forms of unfairness such as unmeritocratic achievements when it comes to job access or a good environment to live in.

Although nuanced from the outset the end result can be vastly different for two equally able individuals boiling down to luck and circumstance which cannot be deemed unfair if the idea that we’re all equal is true, as unequality eventually develops.

Still none the wiser as to whether you believe that the two party system in US is just a façade or that it’s an actual reality of stateside politics.

You can state your conviction in a few words not weird analogies, thanks.

Egalitarianism (from French égal 'equal'), or equalitarianism, is a school of thought within political philosophy that builds on the concept of social equality, prioritizing it for all people.Egalitarian doctrines are generally characterized by the idea that all humans are equal in fundamental worth or moral status. Egalitarianism is the doctrine that all citizens of a state should be accorded exactly equal rights. Egalitarian doctrines have motivated many modern social movements and ideas, including the Enlightenment, feminism, civil rights, and international human rights.

But that is merely an egalitarian ideal whose actualisation is an ongoing process where social mobility is still a factor holding it back due to hidden nepotisms still pervading a meritocratic society.

I’ve read that, seems you allude to it being husband and wife running the house.

Can you make your views a bit more explicit as the analogy doesn’t fully describe US two party politics

What are you on about ? What’s your belief…

IMHO if you really believe the US are living under a one party system then you’re prone to believing in conspiracy

Only intolerable of far-fetched ideas such as the one proposed in the OP, or more outlandish ones such as the Earth is flat, world is run by lizards, there’s microchips in vaccine and other such delusional craziness.

Though the two parties may both be equally incompetent or corrupt does not mean the whole thing is a make believe show for the gullible.

It’s clearly not a one party state otherwise it would be dictatorship but it’s evidently a constitutional democracy, and to claim that this democracy is illusory is to be dealing in conspiracy, simple as.

C: Truth is not context-dependent. — Vera Mont

Supposing then the farmer utters this sentence in the middle of summer.

Today is a hot day.

The thermometer would agree reading 40Celsius.

These two truth values are not only context dependent but interdependent as a hot day is affirmed to be true by the thermometer reading.

It is context dependent because it would not be a hot day in the middle of winter when the thermometer reads -5 Celsius.

And as the truthfulness of such a statement depends on mutual agreement between two or more subjects then it’s no longer subjective (context dependent) but objective (context independent) for certain statements only which are subject to change such as current heat level.

To sum up, objectively true statements are only true if accord can be given to them by the subjects to which such a statement applies hence Today is a hot day would no longer be true objectively when the mercury falls but it could be true to an Eskimo whose conception of heat is different to a farmer.

But this does not include certain statements which hold true universally such as Apples Grow on Trees. You could negate this of course by growing your own Apple artificially in a lab without the tree at all (somehow) or statements like the The Earth is Round. Objectively true, no context needed, truth value remains absolute.