True statements: Philosophy Forums

True statements

NothingtoSay
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 286

Posted 04/15/09 - 06:56 PM:	#81
J. Random Hacker wrote: Truth is a certain kind of relationship. What do you mean, J?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 04/15/09 - 06:59 PM:	#82
NothingtoSay wrote: What is it with you and interesting things? Fine: today I (mostly) finished a drawing I was working on for quite some time. Good for you. I;m just having a go at your name... come back when you have something to say... To say that a statement is true is to do no more than to assent to the statement. What is interesting is how many folk are not happy with this simple truth....
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:13 PM:	#83
NothingtoSay wrote: What do you mean, J? Necessary propositions (i.e. all bachelors are unmarried) are true "by definition" because of the relationship between the words. Contingent propositions (i.e. there are more than three planets) are true "by correspondence to the facts" because of the relationship between the proposition and the facts. We say that propositions are true or false because of their relationships. A proposition "being true" is that proposition being in a certain kind of relationship.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:27 PM:	#84
There's that funny idea, the "proposition", again... what is the relationship between a proposition and a fact? What sort of relationship is involved in the proposition "being true"?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:30 PM:	#85
Might a correspondence theorist reply by saying 'Sure, any sentence can correspond to any fact -- after all, the semantic content of sentences are purely conventional. WE chose to restrict them....to restrict their domain. A sentence can refer to the Big Fact...and as a matter of fact IT DOES if the domain of reference is left unrestricted (and the argument is valid). But once we restrict domain via semantics then we have in essence restricted the fact that some particular sentence corresponds to'. As our language shows...this can be as particular or as inclusive as our imagination can allow for. I'm thinking of what seems to me a similar analogy. One can say that 'class'...just like that, as is, would be the Big Class. But once one has restricted the domain (which is something WE do..I would suggest) then we can have classes that are in fact exclusive. Same with sentences.

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:34 PM:	#86
I may be playing a little loose though...I am not a correspondence theorist...so I don't really know if THEY would be happy with that sort of response.

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:35 PM:	#87
it seems consistent any way...to me..for a correspondence theorist.

J. Random Hacker
banned

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 11, 2009

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 479

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:40 PM:	#88
Banno wrote: There's that funny idea, the "proposition", again... what is the relationship between a proposition and a fact? What sort of relationship is involved in the proposition "being true"? The relationship, as I said, is one of correspondence. Why are propositions funny?

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:41 PM:	#89
It would seem to me that they may prefer there to be a more direct relationship. I doubt that they would be satisfied with "snow is white" is true IFF Banno has two hands - yet this is what the argument appears to show.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 04/15/09 - 07:54 PM:	#90
The argument does show that...left 'as is'. It doesn't take into account that many terms in language actually have for the correspondence theorist (ahem) definite semantic content. Sure. The sentence 'A Cat is on the Mat' can refer to any fact....and to all facts...as the argument has shown. But I'm going to say....I...or WE...have decided to restrict this particular term 'cat' to THAT - parsed ostensibly I guess, to get the ball rolling. But...I don't think a correspondence theorist has to really demonstrate 'how' we do it anyways. The punchline is (he might say), is that we do it. What the correspondence theorist does have to explain, it seems to me, is how sentences can refer to anything 'in particular' if correspondence theory is true (and granting the argument). And it seems to me, all the correspondence theorist really has to say is that we restrict the domain 'as such'..because sentences, qua semantical, themselves are really nothing more than that. See...given any word...the referent can be anything...and if it has no referent..that is the same as all possible referents. It's only when we imbue meaning to the word (i.e. restrict its domain of reference) that it refers to anything in particular. Edited by treysuttle on 04/15/09 - 08:03 PM

Members currently reading this thread: unenlightened
	Download thread as

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.