Just carefully go through Bartramp's comments and pick out from a slew of self-contradiction. Stop wasting your time my friend.

I mean more like the need to take proper account of that which consists of both, and is thus... neither.

merging subject and object. — Pantagruel

A move most certainly needed in many respects...

Reason presupposes truth as correspondence by virtue of presupposing the truth of it's premisses. The OP hasn't even realized that all he's done is argue for logical truth(what people using Reason arrive at) which is precisely and exactly truth as coherency.

He won't see it though.

I'll waste time elsewhere. The rest of you have fun.

...

If you believe that that's a true report of our exchange, then I've nothing further, it says all that need said about how well your notion of truth actually works in practice...

I'm calling bullshit here.

I've shown how your criterion for what counts as "truth" can be satisfied by falsehood. Truth cannot be false. Therefore, your criterion is rejected.

I thought you were going to argue for true propositions having the property of truth. But, if you do not know what propositions are, then that's a bit too much to expect and/or ask of you...

Truth is a property of propositions. — Bartricks

Do you believe that that statement is true?

...what I am interested in - what we are being asked when we are asked "what is truth?' is not what a proposition is, but what this property of truth is. — Bartricks

If truth is a property of a proposition, and all propositions are existentially dependent upon language, then so too is all truth. That is what you obligate yourself to hold... on pains of incoherence, self-contradiction.

The problem is that that is not true.

Furthermore, if you cannot set out what a proposition is, then it does not belong in the lexicon.

I did not express a position on propositions... — Bartricks

So... I've misunderstood then.

What is truth a property of? — creativesoul

Propositions. — Bartricks

:death:

I did not express a position on propositions, — Bartricks

You did doubt a claim about the existential dependency of propositions. If it doesn't matter, so be it. I'm good with hearing the answer to the last question and taking it from there.

So... I've misunderstood then.

What is truth a property of?

There were no books by or about Marx in my high school library, which as eventually learned, was the result of censorship.

I suppose the purpose was to keep the USA from sliding tragically into leftist hell. The effect: I became enraged and I thought it was evidence of the power of 1 percenters to control the American conversation.

It was probably just a few old people carrying genuine fear about where their country was headed. Thoughts? — frank

I was more talking about today's media outlets...

The narrative the last few times I've checked is sad... forever, it seems, predisposed to all the aspects bullshit brings on.

The effect: I became enraged and I thought it was evidence of the power of 1 percenters to control the American conversation. — frank

Not much to stir up that rage... eh?

Belief is the concept of accepting something as your truth, as the infinite self-realization, of acccepting something as your own. But "Truth" as I perceive that you see as "Absolute Truth" is moldable. If the majority says that something its true, it is, end of the discussion. — Gus Lamarch

So, let me see if I have understood you rightly enough....

Belief is accepting something as your truth, wheres truth is if the majority says something is true, it is, end of the discussion?

Nah...

The majority can be wrong, and have false belief. Truth cannot be false. So, truth has nothing at all to do with majority consensus.

Can you think of any other way to talk about correlations drawn between different things aside from being either all internal/mental or all external?

What if correlations consist of both?

All propositions are proposed.
All propositions are existentially dependent upon language.
Language is existentially dependent upon belief.
Propositions are existentially dependent upon belief.
True propositions are kinds of propositions.
True propositions are existentially dependent upon belief.

...

So... you're compelled to hold that propositions do not depend upon language for their very existence. I'm compelled to hold that they are.

What's the argument and/or reasoning in support of your objection here?

I've one for how/why they are.

Prove, please.
— tim wood

What would constitute being proof of that?
— creativesoul
A proof would constitute proof of that. Your claim, you prove. It looks like you don't have one. — tim wood

You're the one invoking proof. What does "prove, please" politely demand if not proof of something or other?

What are you asking me to prove and what does your criterion for proof demand of me? What standard must I meet?

Does the correlation between symbol and what is symbolized exist only mentally, or is there an external, physical, causal relationship between the two that exists independent of any mind drawing the correlation? — Harry Hindu

Are those the only choices?

You would consider what's being censored and by whom and for what reason(s)? In addition, you would consider how censorship is affecting/effecting all of those involved.

Your belief creates your truth... — Gus Lamarch

What's the difference between truth and belief?

Rubbish. You're conflating truth and belief.

Who decides the narrative? Who decides which terms will be used to talk about which situations? This is a form of censorship...
— creativesoul

It's all relative to the size of your steeple. — frank

I think you should take that more seriously... if you're serious about censorship.

Perhaps it's a mistake to think that they are opposing? Perhaps, both are right about some stuff, and both are incomplete and thus inadequate for accounting for everything. Perhaps the reason for this apparent chasm is that both sides work from the same inherently inadequate notions?

That's what I've come to see.

Who decides the narrative? Who decides which terms will be used to talk about which situations? This is a form of censorship...

Media outlets censor all the time.

That situation doesn't seem to end in the way you suggest. Look at 'The West'...

Dont fret China. The Donald is looking to make a better deal. He will profit from it in the end. Russia? Don't fret them either. They own Donald's personal finances.

What's needed is the ability to discriminate between truth and bullshit. Censorship doesn't help.

Why don't you start by explaining what "meaning" is. — Harry Hindu

I did. From the first page of this thread...

At a bare minimum, all attribution of meaning(all meaning) requires something to become symbol/sign, something to become symbolized/significant and a creature capable of drawing a mental correlation, association, and/or connection between the two.

There are no examples to the contrary. — creativesoul

That's better. It seems that you're looking into(talking about) what all meaning takes and/or has in common. That's precisely the aim!

Truth is correspondence between thought and/or belief and what's happened, is happening, and/or will happen.
— creativesoul

Prove, please. — tim wood

What would constitute being proof of that?

I could point to Tarski's T sentence. I could implore your agreement about cats and mats. I could tell you that something or other is the case, and you could go look for yourself. I could point you towards verification/falsification methodology.

Reason is thinking about thought and belief. It's not an entity in and of itself capable of doing stuff. So, it would be helpful if you stopped personifying reason.

Something can be true and no-one believe it, and someone can believe something and it not be true. — Bartricks

I am talking about 'truth', not beliefs. They don't depend on each other, contrary to what you've asserted, as a moment's reflection reveals. Once again, the fact a proposition is true does not entail that it is believed. And the fact a proposition is believed does not entail it is true. — Bartricks

We're not too far apart here actually. I completely agree that something can be true and no-one believe it, and that someone can believe something and it not be true. I also agree that a proposition's being true does not entail that it is believed, and a proposition's being believed does not entail that it's true.

Our disagreement is the bit about interdependence between belief and truth.

In order for a proposition to be true, there must first be a proposition. Propositions are existentially dependent upon language. Language... belief. Therefore... true propositions are existentially dependent upon belief.

True belief exists prior to language. So too does truth. Thus, truth cannot be what you say it is. Besides that, Reason - and following the rules of entailment in particular - can lead to falsehood. See Gettier or any of the historical examples of conventional false belief.

The criterion you've put forth for "truth" can be satisfied by falsehood.

That's worth objecting to it.

It seems that you do not recognize the existential connection between truth and belief.

If true belief is prior to language, then either so too is truth or true belief can exist without truth, which is nonsense.

I have argued - argued, mark you - that truth is the property of being a proposition the content of which Reason asserts to be the case. — Bartricks

I haven't defined truth, so you're attacking a straw man. — Bartricks

I wouldn't be a nuthin with mah head all full 'o stuffins...