Fafner

Why? Because you've said so?

I think a good place to look for understanding what Wittgenstein meant is Frege, especially Frege's context principle (which Wittgenstein adopted in t...

"Interpretation is required for truth" only indirectly via the fixing of meaning, but the truth of the sentence--given some determinate interpretation...

Yes you are confusing meaning and truth. Meaning is what P expresses (namely a truth condition), and truth is determined by whether the truth conditio...

First, as I already said, I'm not trying to define truth via facts or reality. I'm not saying that truth is identical or equivalent to such and such t...

I didn't mean it as some sort of general definition of truth as your post implied. I didn't say what you've ascribed to me in that post ("truth is equ...

I've just gave an example of a language-independent truth as you've asked. I didn't say anything about this being equivalent to truth. The existence o...

Of course it's the later.

Two things can be wrong with an argument: it is logically invalid (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises), and/or one or more of its premise...

By 'irrelevant' I mean that most of what you say doesn't address my arguments. You say many things that even if they are true, they don't show that so...

Yes, and you don't need correspondence for that. The sentence "there have been dinosaurs" states a truth which existed way before humans or language d...

You are confusing between meaning and truth. It is the assignment of meaning to P that is relative to an interpretation, but once a particular meaning...

I agree that at least on some cases we can know just on conceptual grounds that the same thing cannot satisfy two different description if it doesn't ...

I don't agree with that. Judging that a truth condition obtains is a different thing though from the actual obtainment of that truth condition (you ca...

What is especially noteworthy about that McDowell paper is his argument about frogs. He uses a Davidsonian argument to argue that even if you take suc...

There's also a very good paper by john McDowell "The Content of Perceptual Experience" (appears in "Mind, Value and Reality"), that argues for a very ...

Of course language is representational, and truth is (in a certain sense) dependent on representation. This goes without saying :)

But the question is whether this talk about 'correspondence' adds anything substantial over and above what we can already say just using the notion of...

Statement P is objectively true def= if the truth condition expressed by P obtains (and otherwise it is objectively false). Are you happy now?

Again, it all depends on what one means by 'correspondence'. If it is not meant as some sort of metaphysical theory that attempts to explain the truth...

There's no contradiction because you can make different statements by using the same words (consider indexicals such as "I" "here" etc.).

But what distinguishes that two propositions on your view of correspondence?

The idea behind truth-makers is to give a metaphysical explanation of truth in terms of entities which are language-independent (or mind independent m...

Here's one argument against the view the truth is a relation from the top of my head (I think it originated from either Russell or Wittgenstein). Cons...

I'm not necessarily disagreeing, but I have two questions (which are related): a) are you claiming that one can know the Fregean reference solely by v...

You are right, but my argument assumed a definition of correspondence on which for every proposition there's a unique entity corresponding when it is ...

And by the way, it also makes sense to talk about death as a process that can begin some time before the body actually shuts down (thus involving caus...

Ok, I agree that you can make this distinction in some cases. But if someone is stabbed and dies immediately on the spot, then I think it is plausible...

But which events? Does the plotting before the actual assassination is part of the murder? Surely before he physically got stabbed he wasn't in the pr...

You should change the descriptions to "the death of Caesar" and "the murder of Caesar", and then I think it will make more sense to think that they de...

Then see my other comment above. Well no, it doesn't follow. If by "subjective assumption" you mean something like an unjustified or ungrounded belief...

I don't agree, I think it is the same event under different description. I don't see the disanalogy between the two examples: why can't "...was murder...

Or my example of "Caesar's murder" from the thread about truth.

Because you are asking many irrelevant things, and life is too short (and anyway, I don't understand most of your questions). Simple: "the weather out...

And another thing: you argument attempts to establish a metaphysical conclusion ("there's no objective reality") from epistemic premises (all the stuf...

Now you are changing the argument. Plainly the claim that sentences are subjectively interpreted doesn't logically entail that there's no objective re...

Which question? What do you mean "referring to the weather outside"? Of course the sentence "it is raining" is about the weather outside, but its mean...

Because you are changing the topic. As I already told you, if you want to criticize an argument, then you should stick to the original formulation and...

It doesn't matter, because it is irrelevant to my argument. To repeat: If I utter the sentence "it is raining", my words will mean that it is raining ...

Misspeaking and saying something false are not the same thing.

Your objection doesn't make any sense. The sentence "it is raining" means the same regardless of whether it actually rains or not, so the listener doe...

Not at all. The view that 'meaning is use' doesn't entail that words don't refer, it only says that words refer by virtue of their use. I don't unders...

But what if Caesar had not been murdered but died a natural death? In this case it seems that "Caesar died" would have its own truthmaker (distinct fr...

I give up.

No, I treat events as entities for the sake of argument. Sure, but I don't see how this helps (actually this fact is precisely what explains the reaso...

I didn't say this, I only said that the propositions "Caesar died" and "Caesar was murdered" are different, but the event to which they refer is the s...

It follows from the definition of correspondence that if two propositions corresponds to the same entity when true, then they are the same proposition...

Possibility has a lot to do with correspondence in general, because claims about possibility follow logically from the definition of correspondence (a...

This is not what the correspondence theory says though. The thing that correspond to a true proposition is not simply 'actuality' but a particular ent...

And do you agree that if A and B correspond to the same entity, then a situation in which A is true and B is false is impossible? (it simply follows f...