I don’t disagree. I wasn’t intending to argue they applied retroactively to every use of the word; I simply meant to show an example of how that use of the word was clarified in that instance.
Well, yes. Those are valid uses of those words in a public language-game.
Right. That’s true for every possible use of every word and phrase.
Right. Those words have been used in a language-game before with those senses.
My point was very simple: that Red does communicate a true statement, and that (like Erika) one simply needs to narrow down the interpretations of those statements in a public language-game. Mainly, I was going against this statement of yours:
I disagree, because Red does communicate truth in a public language-game, meaning it has a meaning you can grasp from the use of those words. There are many possibilities, sure; there are even some that don’t say what they exactly mean.
But you can still use it.
Take, again: “Kanon is dead.”
Let’s use logic!
If “Kanon is dead” doesn’t refer to the biological body of Kanon, but a role played by Kanon: then we can deduct that the biological body of Kanon has more than one role! It wouldn’t make sense for “Kanon is dead” to mean “Ah, well, my role as Kanon died, but I don’t actually have any other identity. So now I’m just a nameless body.”
No: we can deduct the following: either a) biological Kanon body is dead; b) Kanon was one role in a body that played multiple parts, meaning two or more roles were in the same body (a PRETTY BIG DEAL); c) other interpretations of that line.
Basically, all I wanted to say was that Red Truth did, in fact, convey some truth, even if it’s not clear which; you just need to delve into the public interpretations of those words. It’s more ambiguous, sure; but even knowing “One of the following is true” is useful.