Michael

What history is being rewritten?

Again, I don't know what this means. Can you be specific? What is an actual example of a "more/aesthetics of the majority" that is being attacked by l...

I have no idea what you're trying to say. Can you be less vague and give specific examples of things that we do, or don't do, that you think is proble...

@"Eros1982" Maybe you could stop dancing around the issue and be more precise with what you're saying. Are you saying that it's better for society if ...

So a like-minded community is one where certain groups of people should be disrespected? This really is quite telling of your (lack of) ethics.

Why wouldn't it? See here and here.

Well, equal rights is a pretty important aspect of democracy. Still don't know what this has to do with Soros.

What?

Haack has an interesting comment on this point from that same book.

A fitting quote from Haack's Philosophy of logics: Tarski emphasises that the (T) schema is not a definition of truth – though in spite of his insiste...

If we know that p is false then we know that not-p is true.

So "p" and "'p' is true" have the same extension but might have a different intension? I suppose the same could be said of "'p' is true" and "'p' is f...

Yes, good point. Not sure what I was thinking there. Obviously (3) is false.

I'm not sure about this. Are these equivalent? 1. "p" is true iff p 2. "p" is a true sentence iff p 3. "p" is a sentence iff p (1) might be equivalent...

So you're saying that these are equivalent? 1. "p" is true iff p 2. "'p' is true" means "p" Tarski's T-schema is Ramsey's redundancy theory?

I find the part in bold problematic. Is "p" is foo iff p the semantics of "is foo"? As I said at the start of this discussion, I think a distinction n...

There’s a difference between aspiring to have certain qualities and aspiring to be like another person. It’s the latter that I find problematic.

Veneration. Honestly such an appalling idea. Hero worship, God worship, all of it just seems terrible to me.

By “best” I’m also including moral goodness.

I dislike the notion of role models. I've never had any. Aspiring to be like someone else seems to me to show a weakness of character and a lack of se...

The T-schema suffers from the same problem, as I mentioned before. 1. "p" is foo iff p This is not a theory, or definition, of "foo". If we want an ac...

Your wording is ambiguous and leaves it open to equivocation. We decide that the word "water" refers to this stuff, that the symbol "2" refers to this...

The T-schema doesn’t say much and is compatible with more substantial theories of truth, e.g: “7 + 5 = 12” is true iff 7 + 5 = 12, and 7 + 5 = 12 iff ...

But I should add that I don’t think it’s a given that I’m talking about the correspondence theory. I’m not saying that some sentences correspond to ma...

So do I. I think coherence is a better fit for formal systems like maths.

It does seem to me that people have been taken so completely by Wittgenstein and those like him that they’re being bewitched by language in the opposi...

But we still have to check the material world because it is the material world that determines whether or not the sentence is true. All you’re saying ...

I’d say no. Understanding that “snow is green” iff snow is green and that “snow is white” iff snow is white isn’t understanding that snow is white. Fo...

Yes, and I’m trying to describe how truth works in the English (or other natural) language. So I don’t understand this response.

It’s not just how we use language. I say “the kettle is boiling”, you say “the kettle is not boiling”. One of us is right and one of us is wrong, and ...

Even if you put non-linguistic stuff/environmental objects into semantic content it is still the case that this non-linguistic stuff/environmental obj...

You're going to have to print out the website and post it to me.

This is ambiguous. John being a bachelor determines that "John is not married to Jane" is true and that "John is not married to Jake" is true. "John i...

Yes.

Not sure what more you want. I think I covered it when I said that a) a rigorous account of truth should cash out the consequent of the T-schema, and ...

But not what only can be said. We're not required to just stop at "snow is white" is true iff snow is white. A rigorous account should cash out the co...

Well, is there a way to determine which metaphysics is correct? If materialism is correct then the truth of "the kettle is boiling" depends on the exi...

I was referring to the sentence "the kettle is boiling". I have mentioned before that I'm not talking about every sentence. Obviously the truth of a s...

When I say that kettles are non-linguistic I mean that they are not words or sentences or any other feature of language. I’m addressing those who say ...

Then you need to be more explicit with your argument. What sort of things are members of your premised set of all that exists? Urelements like apples,...

That’s my understanding of the slingshot. All it says is that all true sentences refer to the same world, just as all true sentences about the kettle ...

I don’t. Both “the kettle is black” and “the kettle is metal” refer to the same kettle but it doesn’t follow from this that the kettle is black becaus...

Then I think the problem is with the wording of the discussion. In ZFC, urelements are not allowed. Everything is a set. But in the real world things ...

But sets don’t exist if physicalism is true, and so following your reasoning the physicalist cannot define any set. Given that the physicalist does de...

Then the mathematical anti-realist can use set theory to define the set of all that physically exists in my cupboard, or all that physically exists in...

So how is it that mathematical anti-realists, like physicalists, can use set theory?

The set theory we’re operating on is the one in which sets exist, and so the set of all that physically exists isn’t a universal set.

We can assume, when doing maths, that sets exist even if sets do not exist. A physicalist, who doesn’t believe that sets exists, can make use of ZFC s...

I’m not talking about the universal set. I’m talking about the set of all that physically exists. These are not the same thing. So, in ZFC, why is the...

I’m not taking about that though. Use normal set theory. The set of all that physically exists is not contradictory. It might not be, within set theor...