I wasn’t referring to you, rather to Prism.
Language is just a dressing, a covering, a meaning-carrier. We invented language to convey meanings already possessed–true meanings, primarily. Words were applied to concepts, ideas we had drawn from meaning, a higher plane of existence.
I agree.
Truth–the meaning, not the five letters we use to convey the meaning–can be applied to a number of ideas or concepts within a fairly restricted linguistic domain.
“Truth” means that it is an accurate reflection of reality.
To suggest that truth just refers to language statements is just saying you and others wish to consign the word “truth” to a language statement–the meaning of your choosing. That’s fine, no problem there. The application of truth to its language elements falls within that accepted domain. But you can’t demand ownership of the signifier for only your purposes, James.
It isn’t up to me. It is not MY language. I am only explaining what is already defined in the language concerning what the word “true” means and has always meant.
You’re a realist. I consider myself a realist. Yes or no question: 500,000 years ago was it true that there were 5,280 feet in a mile–at that specific point in time? Seems to me one answer is compatible with the realist point of view and the other is inconsistent.
Yes. Although many will foolishly argue that because a “mile” was not defined back then, there were no “feet” in a mile. It would be a silly argument, but we get a lot of that around here.