every one of my cards explicitly states the context in which a statement stands.
Again, perfectly consistent with holding that meaning rather than truth is context-dependent.
And, again, I appreciate that you would say (T) "Truth is context-dependent" rather than (M) "Meaning is context-dependent". What I'm trying to grasp is (1) whether you mean by (T) more than someone else might mean by (M) and (2) whether your reasons for holding (T) are good reasons for holding (T) rather than (M).
against Fantology
This doesn't seem to me to have much to do with whether there are objective truths; it's about what sort of things, and relationships between things, and qualities, and so forth, there are. Holding that some truths aren't well expressible in terms of first-order predicate calculus isn't the same thing as holding that there are no truths.
Again, perfectly consistent
If you at most people's Anki cards they don't contain explicit references to context. There are reasons why that's the case. It comes from the way those people think about the nature of knowledge.
Holding that some truths aren't well expressible in terms of first-order predicate calculus isn't the same thing as holding that there are no truths.
I haven't said that there are no truths but that truths are context dependent. On of the issues of first-order predicate calculus is that it doesn't contain information about context.
As per a recent comment this thread is meant to voice contrarian opinions, that is anything this community tends not to agree with. Thus I ask you to post your contrarian views and upvote anything you do not agree with based on personal beliefs. Spam and trolling still needs to be downvoted.