Yes, it seems we must be more subtle.

I wonder if you have seen Kripke's idea:

Saul Kripke contends that a natural language can in fact contain its own truth predicate without giving rise to contradiction. He showed how to construct one as follows:

Begin with a subset of sentences of a natural language that contains no occurrences of the expression "is true" (or "is false"). So The barn is big is included in the subset, but not " The barn is big is true", nor problematic sentences such as "This sentence is false".
Define truth just for the sentences in that subset.
Then extend the definition of truth to include sentences that predicate truth or falsity of one of the original subset of sentences. So "The barn is big is true" is now included, but not either "This sentence is false" nor "'The barn is big is true' is true".
Next, define truth for all sentences that predicate truth or falsity of a member of the second set. Imagine this process repeated infinitely, so that truth is defined for The barn is big; then for "The barn is big is true"; then for "'The barn is big is true' is true", and so on.
Notice that truth never gets defined for sentences like This sentence is false, since it was not in the original subset and does not predicate truth of any sentence in the original or any subsequent set. In Kripke's terms, these are "ungrounded." Since these sentences are never assigned either truth or falsehood even if the process is carried out infinitely, Kripke's theory implies that some sentences are neither true nor false. This contradicts the Principle of bivalence: every sentence must be either true or false. Since this principle is a key premise in deriving the Liar paradox, the paradox is dissolved.[63]

Thanks.
But, how would you know if you are not assigning a false sentence the property of truth?
The barn is big is one sentence, the barn is small is another.
How would one know whether to club them together or not?

Plus we are assigning the property of truth here, not defining it.

He uses satisfaction.

Can you explain that term more clearly? How so?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

If that which makes a proposition true differs from true proposition to true proposition, then in what way does it differ?

Perhaps it be better to ask... what, on your view, makes a proposition true?

I'm simply trying to understand what you're saying with regard to truth.

With regard to defining true and false...

Defining true is calling something "true". Being true is not equivalent to being called "true". Exploring this difference(between being true and being called "true") can be interesting.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Truth is not an object that you can define in the universe. Truth is a constant value which must exist before the universe or any other existence and one could speculate that it is the only thing that must always be. For example the statement "before the universe existed" demonstrates the ability to give a value to the non-existence of the universe at that point and the truth value of the statement, be the answer true or false, demonstrates the truth value that existed before the universe became.
This look at truth should answer the question "can the universe be defined" to have an answer as it has truth value or it does not. However, as the observer here has literally mapped everything themself, the answer was always Yes, and the observer has quantified and defined the universe by observing it.
Even while the scope may be beyond our comprehension, what ' is' or that which 'exists' must indeed have an end as that is the simple nature of our universe.

The Stanford site makes pretty clear that true as a general term does not have a single definition, but rather a constellation of differing and irreconcilable definitions. The details are extremely tedious - you're welcome to travel that path if you want to. More interesting to me is speculating on why. — tim wood

My speculation is that truth is a comparison, a measure of equivalence or differentiation. This apple is red is a comparison of the apple's color to a predefined wavelength of light.

The binary bifurcation of true/false can be enhanced to true/not-true/false, where not-true and false are not identical sets. That increase in resolution also demonstrates that further increases could result in a gradient, perhaps what we call confidence.

The Stanford site makes pretty clear that true as a general term does not have a single definition, but rather a constellation of differing and irreconcilable definitions. — tim wood

Yes it does. That fact grounds my questions.

(For present purpose I'm defining true and truth as meaning the same thing, expressed as an adjective or a noun.)

I've heard enough. Thanks for the exchange. I'm not interested.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Events. Ongoings. Happenings. States of affairs. The case at hand. The way things were and/or are. Reality.

By the way. What you've just quoted is a misrepresentation of the facts. It makes it seem as if I offered that answer to that quote. I didn't. I abhor insincerity.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Well, that's similar to the correspondence theory. In the details, I reject the conventional account for the same reason(and more) that I reject the notion that all thought and belief have propositional content, or that propositions are equivalent to thought and belief. Eventually, I'll coin my own namesake. For now, I use the terms "truth" and "correspondence" interchangeably. Hesperus and Phosphorus.

I'm familiar with that article. I'm also cognizant of equivocation. I'm also up for it if you would like to compare the different conceptions of "truth". Other than that, I would still like for you to answer the question I asked earlier. Twice.

By the way. What you've just quoted is a misrepresentation of the facts. It makes it seem as if I offered that answer to that quote. I didn't. I abhor insincerity.
— creativesoul

Maybe you should read the post; it's just above. — tim wood

When I wrote "Yes it does", 'it' referenced the article. Maybe you should read the post; it's just above. Then compare what I wrote with what you quoted. Removing the context removes much of the meaning(or at least what is required for one to correctly attribute and/or share it).

If it was inadvertent, then my mistake and apologies. However, given the lack of commitment in your language to make any strong assertions, I'm cautious of both rhetoric and dialetheism(para-consistent logic).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

does that mean then that some beliefs are inherent and are never questioned?

creativesoul does that mean then that some beliefs are inherent and are never questioned? — Myttenar

Not sure what you're referring to. In the above question, replace the term "that" with what you're asking me about. That would let me know what you're asking hopefully.

I wouldn't use the term inherent as qualification for belief, unless it was discourse about kinds of belief. For example, moral belief is always about that which is considered acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and/or behaviour. So, belief about acceptable/unacceptable thought, belief, and behaviour is inherent to moral discourse. Any and all times we're thinking about what we should or should not do, we are involved in moral thought and belief. Any and all times we're stating that we should do something or other, we're making a moral claim, by virtue of expressing moral thought and belief.

Regarding beliefs that are never questioned...

Questioning one's own thought and belief is a metacognitive endeavor. Not everyone can, nor does. A crucial aspect of questioning one's own thought and belief is that one cannot effectively do it alone. It requires an other.

It could also be said that when one holds unshakable conviction in some belief or other, that that belief is unquestioned or unquestionable. However, that is not to say that it has never been.

"it" was in reference to your post about correspondence theory..

Thought and belief without propositional content.. to me resembles instinct.
I had assumed that propositional content was exactly the methodology used to develop beliefs.
Maybe I am unclear on the idea?

In Rhetoric, confidence (persuasiveness) is important. — tim wood

Confidence in the mathematical sense used in probabilities and statistics. Roll a single six-sided die: Prior to the toss I am 5/6 confident (83%) that the result will not be a four.

↪creativesoul "it" was in reference to your post about correspondence theory..

Thought and belief without propositional content.. to me resembles instinct.
I had assumed that propositional content was exactly the methodology used to develop beliefs.
Maybe I am unclear on the idea? — Myttenar

Which wouldn't surprise me at all, given that my position is unconventional. They're catching up though. ;) Paradigm shift is a slow process. That post is underwritten by my own personal conception of thought and belief. One could say it's a theory of mind, however that would be misleading for I am not a mind/body dualist. I do not believe that disembodied cognition is even possible.

To be clear, the vast overwhelming majority of thought and belief could be said to have propositional content. It makes more sense, on my view at least, to say that most thought and belief are existentially contingent upon language, and as such the content therein can be - most times - adequately represented by virtue of statements thereof.

However, I do strongly argue for the notion that philosophy - on a whole - has gotten thought and belief wrong.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How many ways are there to get a person to suspend their critical judgment in favour of acceptance? — tim wood

In order to achieve the relaxation that accompanies belief that something or other is true...

How many ways are there to convince another to believe something?

Truth - here - doesn't factor into the goal, except with regard to getting the answer correct. Otherwise... Ends justify the means.

Regarding another portion of your last reply...

What would count as conclusive with regard to truth?

"both propositions, both true. But what in their respective truths is the same? "

Since "strawberries taste good" is subjective I'm going to say perspective.

Sure, confidence, but you also have a categorical proposition about your chances that is true, if you've done the math right, and false, if you haven't. — tim wood

Willingness to be wrong is part of the equation. I can state with 100% certainty what the sum of the roll of a pair of dice will be before the toss: It will be a number in the range [2..12].

The value of 100% certainty is that it shows the full range of what is possible, but without a sense of what is probable. There is a trade-off that can be made where I can choose to be less certain of what is possible in exchange for what is probable.

For example, I can choose to narrow the outcome of that toss of dice to be a prediction in the range [5..9], with a confidence of (24/36 = 6/9 = 67%). I'll be right 2 times out of 3 and wrong 1 time out of three. If there's a financial gain/loss involved then that may be enough base a decision.