The Metaphysics of Truth

At various points in my life, I have held beliefs that were either deductively/inductively invalid. As I have grown older, I have grown confused by what it means for a belief to be true. I have ignored the metaphysical problem of truth for a long time, but I have realized that without a theory of metaphysics of truth, I will keep running around in circles. Seeking philosophical answers without metaphysics seems to be a pointless albeit intellectually entertaining philosophical exercise.
Philosophers have studied different definitions of truth under the heading of metaphysics of truth. As far as I know, there are three main theories of truth. A common feature of these theories is that they assume a metaphysical system.

1. Correspondence theory of truth
   The basic idea of the correspondence theory is that a belief is true if it corresponds to the way things actually are – to the facts. I think this theory runs into a catch-22 problem. Can there be things in the world which correspond to the way things actually are (fact has a specific meaning in philosophy) and false ? If such things exist in the real world, then why do we regard them as false ? In philosophical terms, can false propositions exist ?
   This theory is currently popular in philosophical and scientific circles. From a practical standpoint, I think it makes a lot of sense to accept it. It’s acceptance implicitly also implies acceptance of realism (the world exists). Arguing against realism is probably an anathema so I will not discuss it. I wanted to note it for future reference.

2. Coherence theory of truth
   A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs. In contrast to correspondence theory which emphasizes the relation of truth to actual facts in the world, the coherence theory emphasises the relation between “truths”/facts within the system.
   It is obvious that one could come up with multiple systems of beliefs which are coherent separately but incompatible with each other. This objection was raised by Russel and is referred as The Specification Objection. An overview of other objections can be found here.

3. Pragmatist theory of truth
   According to this theory, Truth is the end of inquiry.

I accept the Pragmatist theory of truth currently. I have believed in the correspondence theory of truth for a long time. It has proved to be very useful in my career as an engineer. Now I believe that from a higher perspective (metaphysics of metaphysics?) one could accept even metaphysics to be impermanent. Adamantly refusing to change ones metaphysics, particularly when it leads to misery, isn’t sensible from a pragmatic standpoint. Such a view also implicitly implies the acceptance of permanence of metaphysics.
So from a practical standpoint, I have decided to accept the impermanence of metaphysics. More concretely, I think my conception of metaphysics has two levels:
Level 1: I accept correspondence theory of truth.
This level deals with worldly facts and objects.
Level 2: I accept pragmatic theory of truth for level 1 truths.
This allows me to be pragmatic about my level 1 metaphysics of truth.
Accepting the pragmatic theory as meta-metaphysics of truth and accepting impermanence marks the end of my inquiry into this subject.