Whether anyone has a view on anything like this has no bearing on the actual thing being true, false, or true or false at the same time or neither true nor false at the same time, but they're specially trained in determining which is the case, so there is very likely a relation. I'm going to defer to them until such time I ever have the skills to do otherwise. That's how the division of labot goes.

Thanks for te book recommendation. Looks amazing. Loved Siddartha.

After the postmodernist wave, analytic philosophers have attempted to rescue the notion of truth. All those attempts, including the ones you listed, change the meaning of 'truth' significantly, compared to how non-philosophers use that term.

None of the listed options is so convincing that everybody using their rationality would immediately agree with the proposed model of truth. That seems to indicate that also for these options, rationality alone is insufficient to establish truth, and a belief/irrational/social factor still would be at play.

I'm not implying that the mentioned approaches developed by analytic philosophers are useless. They do deepen our understanding how reasoning and fact establishing works. But in my opinion they are still very far away of solving the Münchhausen Trilemma.

This isn't a history that an analytic philosopher would give, its just question begging from a postmodernist bias.

So which of those approaches is the one all rational humans would agree on, so that we can base the notion of truth on it from now on?