Truth is a relation between propositions and the world. In as much, the concept of truth requires a proposition due to the very meaning of the concept of truth. This does not mean it is a relationship between language and the world.
S
To me, truth is merely a category for sorting human thoughts.
Isn’t a language just a communication or record of propositions? - neither exists without the other.
Why make the distinction?
Of course we’ll need a…oh, never mind. 
He’s even bored of himself now.
We do need a context, but not in the way u mean, Biggs. In the way u mean would involve an infinite regress of contexts. Like this. Biggs axes for a context, so then Biggs is admitting at least one truth, and that’s that a context is needed. But if this is true, I have to consider the context of my thinking that at least one truth exists, and that’s that truth is contextual, ad biggseaum.
*The Aristotle variation.
Biggs is no epistemologist, but he’s one of the best goddamn existentialists I’ve ever know.
You missed my point. But, then, as with Urwrong, I guess you’re stuck with the brain God gave you.
But just in case I’m wrong, sure, go ahead, note a particular context and, in regard to the point raised in the OP, let’s compare and contrast our own rendition on the nature of truth.
In fact, even though it is difficult to probe this point substantively without a set of circumstances to work with, I think that, basically, I agree with it.
There are proposition we make about the world “in words”. And, for some, the words themselves become the world. They assert that something is true and the assertion itself becomes the proof of it. But truth is less the relationship between the language that we choose and the world, and more the extent to which we can demonstrate how, given a particular context, the language that we choose reflects the most rational assessment of the situation.
For example, the language that we choose in making a distinction between “Joe Biden is now president of the United States” and “Joe Biden is doing a superb job as president of the United States.”
Both involve the use of language to noting something about the world.
But which use of language here is grounded more in, say, a demonstrable truth?
Oh, and I have rarely ever been bored. And going back decades now.
Of course we’ll need a…oh, never mind.
On the other hand, what would an epistemologist of, say, pood’s caliber, make of this?
After all, what can we know or not know about epistemology itself?
As for existentialists, they’re okay. Until they get around to that bit about “authenticity”.
Then we will definitely need a context.
Holee shit dude u just reminded me of something. Tell me if u remember this. In 2002 at the Philosophy Cafe (i wuz 27) I started a thread on freewill with a large passage from Sartre’s Being and Nothingness in the OP. The name of the thread was something like ‘Sartre’s Bombshell’, and u - Biggy at the time - said something like ‘ill try to get around to reading it’. U were then engaged with Friedrich and Hawk and the whole kantian objectivism brigade at that forum.
Yo u remember that? That was twenty fuckin years ago man. How can u know someone so long without knowing them? I feel like we’re getting old together.
Who was that author u were always fond of quoting when u made threads at PC? I wanna say Norman something but not Norman mailer. U don’t quote the guy anymore otherwise I’d recognize his name.
The guy was like an Oscar Wilde of existentialism. Like a funner version of Camus. Maybe I recall the mood wrongly. It wuz like existential journalism of the Hunter Thompson type.
The reason for this post is that someone stated
“A purely theoretical conception of truth is not fit for social and philosophical purposes. Truth is not a relationship between language and the world, but a special kind of social agreement.”
There’s all types of people here so wondering if anyone would try to argue against my OP.
No contest here.
No contest here. Kant does offer a way out, a categorical agreement, a synthesized, logical operation in fortherance of the golden rule. That may be something to strive for, that not everyone should be embarrassed about for lack of.
But if it serves the utility of unnatural hypocracy, then that sorry state may be consider an affrontery.
Nature is not always fair in love and war. The war part naturally abates by the milk of human kindness, that usually transcends prejudices of all ungrounded conflicts.
Failure to connect the dots is not always due to retroactively induced gaps , with the actual intention to conflate the widening gaps in an appearent effort to obfuscate the rules of games and how people play them.
Division of fractured souls do tend to identify projectively and introjectively, thereby missing the boat.
Lol 