We generally insist on non-contradiction not because it’s an objective universal law but because it is a practical necessity for what we’re saying to be meaningful and interpretable as referring to a state of affairs.
-
-
'there is a square circle' is perfectly meaningful, it just can't possibly be true. Have you read Sider's critique of this kind of view?
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
I have not, where could I find it? It is a meaningful sentence in that each of the tokens has meaning. It is not meaningful in that it is not interpretable as an intelligible state of affairs. Admittedly it's not always as obvious if something is a contradiction (e.g. Goldbach).
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Somewhere in 'Writing the book of the world'...can't remember where now. I can only hear this as saying there is no possible state of affairs that could make it true. I agree, but what makes that the case?
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Challenging points! I'd just say again that a state of affairs obtaining and not obtaining at the same time is unintelligible. I could also fall back and reiterate my point that you need to accept basic reason/memory as a starting point for anything.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
It's not unintelligible because of how we define words
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
It's unintelligible not because I don't understand the words but because I don't understand what it would mean for a state of affairs to obtain and not at the same time. It is literally nonsense.
0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
My point is the fact that it is unintelligible in this sense is not dependent on how we use words. It's a facts that's independent of us and would've obtained not matter how the facts of thought and language turned out.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Agreed. Ok, so you take this to undermine my point about mathematics being true by definition. I would still stand by that, though. The truths about mathematical definitions are discovered through reason. We have no choice but to accept basic reason if we want to make sense.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @Disagreeable_I @Philip_Goff i sljedećem broju korisnika:
So all bachelors are unmarried is true by definition, despite the fact that we may need to use a bit of logic to deduce this from the definition.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 0 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
Perhaps I should concede the point that mathematical truths are not simply true by definition. Would it be more acceptable to instead say that they follow necessarily from definitions?
-
-
Odgovor korisnicima @Disagreeable_I @Philip_Goff i sljedećem broju korisnika:
Perhaps I can insert several standard distinctions into this thread: meaningful/meaningless, analytic/synthetic, necessary/contingent/impossible. It sounds like
@Philip_Goff claims that moral sentences are meaningful, synthetic, and necessary.1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa -
Odgovor korisnicima @FizzixFox @Disagreeable_I i sljedećem broju korisnika:
If that's right, then (1) moral sentences can be true or false (meaningful), (2) they do not merely state relations of ideas, conventions, or definitions, but are substantive (synthetic), and (3) if they are true in one possible world then they are also true in all other worlds.
1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 1 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa - Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.