I believe that this position, that truth is dependent on both a subject, and on an objective reality, is a common one. It excludes the extreme realist...
Again, you've offered a dreadful representation of my argument. You even added quotations as if it's what I actually wrote. Here's what I actually wro...
Actually, I was working off of Fafner's definition of "truth". Fafner defined "truth" as when the truth conditions expressed by a sentence, obtain. My...
This is not a representation of my argument at all. As I explained to Fafner, I only argue contingencies, no predication. I do not say all A's are B's...
Recap: The issue at hand is the question of whether an interpretation can be wrong (mistaken) without having been judged as that. You claimed that whe...
OK, I agree, spacetime is something "made up". Why not, we're talking about real activity aren't we? And spacetime is made up. Made up, and real are m...
I might go along with this. But before you were talking about one thing, "spacetime", and now you are talking about two distinct things, time and spac...
Here's an example of why it is important, in this type of discussion, to distinguish between the thing referred to, and the attributes, or properties ...
Sure, but do you distinguish between material things like bodies, and immaterial things like souls? Action is not confined to "in spacetime". That's w...
The soul is explicitly "not a body", therefore it cannot be a "special kind" of body. Since it is not a body, it is highly unlikely that it exists in ...
That's simply because you refuse to try (denial). You should try though, if you are truly interested in issues like this, because it is very important...
As the principle of actuality of a living body, the soul is necessarily prior to the actual living body. The problem with reincarnation, as it is comm...
I believe this is an incorrect assumption. All the possible worlds are possible. There is nothing to distinguish one from the others as the actual wor...
You can shout indignities all you want, but the point remains. You haven't explained how you think something could be wrong without having been judged...
Let me see if I understand you. There are things which you do not know, and even human beings do not know, but there is still a possibility for truth ...
There is no such problem with my argument. The truth value of the sentence (A), is dependent on the truth conditions of the statement (B), which is de...
It was your definition of truth I was working with. You said that truth is when the truth conditions expressed by a sentence obtain. My argument was t...
I told you that I adhere to one definition of subjective. Despite your assertion, you have yet to demonstrate any equivocation on my part. I believe y...
What lacks interest to you, may be interesting to me, that's just human nature. Your definition is unacceptable because the way you defined "objective...
Like any other incidence of right or wrong, correct or incorrect, good or bad, an interpretation is only wrong by virtue of being judged as such. That...
I think this is a very naïve perspective. It appears like you are limiting "truth", to the concerns of things which we can see with our eyes. But the ...
Hi tim, nice to see that you've gotten back in the thread, and that you haven't given up hope on finding truth. Nor have I, but I still see no way of ...
Sure you can believe something without understanding what you believe. I think that's very common. Someone tells you something, you believe it, withou...
Science attempts to quantify any quality, though there are qualities which cannot be quantified. That's just the nature of reality, not all qualities ...
You've already presented (or represented) the situation as "the keys are locked in the car" when you said "if the keys are locked in the car". So the ...
Not so fast. Let's say that we have a fixed, determinate interpretation of the sentence. That interpretation must be related to some sort of reality, ...
Your use of "name" is ambiguous, we were talking about learning a word, "hand". I'm saying that one makes an association when learning a word, and thi...
Yes, the truth condition is the meaning expressed by P. As per your statement, this is a requirement for truth. And, interpretation is required for th...
I'm not confusing meaning and truth Fafner. You said P is true, "if the truth condition expressed by P obtains. I said "the truth condition expressed ...
Right, that's why interpretation is subjective. Of course, how could it be meaningful to you without some interpretation? Right, this is why "what the...
This is what you said: Without an interpretation of "P", there is no such thing as "the truth condition expressed by P". What is expressed by P is the...
The truth of a proposition or statement requires that the statement has meaning, and this requires that the statement or proposition has been interpre...
Any physicist who regards a field as a real thing, has got a very strange ontology. It cannot be visualized as a mattress with springs, because numero...
Do not "requires", and "contingent upon", both imply "is dependent on" to you? Try this: If C requires B, and B is contingent on A, then C requires A....
The argument is as stated above. Do you agree or not? Truth is dependent on meaning, and meaning is dependent on interpretation, therefore truth is de...
No, because there are unstated premises involved which are known by principles other than stated in your argument.. If C is dependent on B, and B is d...
Being true requires being meaningful. Whether or not the statement is meaningful is contingent on interpretation. Therefore being true is contingent o...
Until you define what "objectively true" is, what you say here is meaningless. And, your definition of "objectively true" will be subjective. So all t...
Oh yeah, there are many different interpretations of Wittgenstein, that's the issue which got me into this thread. I can't see the point you're making...
You seem to be mixing up the terms Fafner. That there is no objective reality is the premise, not the conclusion. This premise is supported by the fac...
This is the point here. The supposed "entity", is the "object" which forms the basis of your "objectively true". But there is no reality to that suppo...
No, that's not the case, because to be objectively true or false, requires that there is an objective reality which the interpretation of the sentence...
The wheel is what is circular, it is described by "circular", so the wheel is what we claim to be real. Now what is it which is described by the "fiel...
Well I haven't read the thread, it's progressed far to fast for me, but I think we've hit the nail on the head. "Language as use" provides us with no ...
Comments