tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post926297285692847756..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Two clear arguments against truthmakersEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger29125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-1429659645922179542011-11-12T23:51:24.368+00:002011-11-12T23:51:24.368+00:00No,you're wrong Marc Anthony. You don't ha...No,you're wrong Marc Anthony. You don't have a clue what this is about ,little AZ man--"beliefs" hah hah. And has nothing with what you "believe" Frege is discussing either, neo nazi<br /><br />since Frege doesn't defend "truthmakers' (Vallicella attempts to say that..wrongly as usual)--it's Armstrong's term--it's..all off-topic and irrelevant. Frege's a Cartesian, and formalist opposed to empiricism--the essay concerns the difficulty of establishing Truth or knowledge via sense impression (ie, the truth of the proposition)--ie, green leaves, etc--all contingent ,ever-changing etc.(and recall his point on color-blindness) . Yr pal "Anthony" the theatre boy knows nothing about it.<br /><br />Armstrong's no Fregean. He's an empirical realist (not the same as as a mathematical realist,except to fools). So there's a truthmaker for "Horses exist". But there isn't one for "Unicorns exist". (ie, a negation poses other issues).So enough of the Frege strawman. Do you disagree with Armstrong? Actually I agree with him: though there's something odd in the "truthmaker" terminology. But establishing a proposition as true (even if's...contingent in the long run--ie, evolution-wise) does require observing an object/group of objects--a horse, or say, potassium reacting with water. You see the reaction, and know it's True that a chunk of K mixed with H20 produces a violent reaction...and avoid doing itJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-52109675391346430772011-11-12T22:54:11.537+00:002011-11-12T22:54:11.537+00:00>> >>Maybe we should go back to truthb...>> >>Maybe we should go back to truthbearers, and whether or not you believe truthbearers exist.<br /><br />>> I don't know.<br /><br />Start there, then. If you're not sure whether or not truthbearers exist, let alone what they are ("sentences", "eternal sentences", "statements", "thoughts", "beliefs", "propositions"), you're not going to make any sense pontificating about the (non-)existence of truthmakers.<br /><br />>> The nominalist position would be that they don't.<br /><br />I think you're wrong about that. But it's pretty irrelevant anyway.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-33573761211086132522011-11-12T13:56:33.367+00:002011-11-12T13:56:33.367+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-83894300914677790932011-11-12T13:32:03.765+00:002011-11-12T13:32:03.765+00:00>>Use of what? What is the use you normally ...>>Use of what? What is the use you normally adopt?<br /><br />'Proposition', as should be obvious from the context. <br /><br />In traditional logic, a proposition (Latin: <i>propositio</i>) is a spoken assertion (<i>oratio enunciativa</i>).<br /><br />>>Maybe we should go back to truthbearers, and whether or not you believe truthbearers exist.<br /><br />I don't know. The nominalist position would be that they don't.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-73868142488244030642011-11-12T13:22:53.311+00:002011-11-12T13:22:53.311+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-31850599806174329302011-11-12T12:35:31.983+00:002011-11-12T12:35:31.983+00:00>> Well there is a traditional use, and a mo...>> Well there is a traditional use, and a modern use. I normally adopt the traditional use.<br /><br />Use of what? What is the use you normally adopt?<br /><br />Maybe we should go back to truthbearers, and whether or not you believe truthbearers exist.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-63730432496870324532011-11-12T12:13:07.345+00:002011-11-12T12:13:07.345+00:00>> I'm not talking about beliefs, but me...>> I'm not talking about beliefs, but meanings.<br /><br />Well you used the term proposition.<br /><br />>> Does 'Socrates exists' have the same meaning, if uttered yesterday, than today?<br /><br />"Socrates exists" is a pair of words. It only has meaning in context. Whether it has the same meaning, if uttered yesterday or today, depends on the context, and, of course, the speaker.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-69030611376183654842011-11-12T08:32:35.934+00:002011-11-12T08:32:35.934+00:00>>"Socrates exists", said in 410 B...>>"Socrates exists", said in 410 BC, expresses a different belief than "Socrates exists", said in 390 BC.<br /><br />I'm not talking about beliefs, but meanings. Does 'Socrates exists' have the same meaning, if uttered yesterday, than today?Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-55041085471915745872011-11-12T08:30:25.321+00:002011-11-12T08:30:25.321+00:00>> an important distinction between a senten...>> an important distinction between a sentence and a proposition,<br /><br />Well there is a traditional use, and a modern use. I normally adopt the traditional use.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-90249899075774620262011-11-12T01:12:01.213+00:002011-11-12T01:12:01.213+00:00>> he must then explain why Socrates sometim...>> he must then explain why Socrates sometimes (tenselessly) makes the proposition ‘Socrates exist’ true (i.e. when Socrates is alive) and sometimes (tenselessly) he fails to make it true (now he is dead, or before he is born)<br /><br />By the way, that's simple. It's a different proposition. "Socrates exists", said in 410 BC, expresses a different belief than "Socrates exists", said in 390 BC.<br /><br />"But are there not thoughts which are true today but false in six months' time? The thought, for example, that the tree there is covered with green leaves, will surely be false in six months' time. No, for it is not the same thought at all." (A few pages earlier in that essay by Frege. "Gedanken", translated to "thought", is Frege's notion of a proposition, and while I don't agree with it in its entirety, I do agree with this quote, where he properly acknowledges an important distinction between a sentence and a proposition, which you are continually confusing as you did above.)Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-23311932797373170942011-11-11T16:32:15.414+00:002011-11-11T16:32:15.414+00:00You shall not be named, Byro-"Anthony" t...You shall not be named, Byro-"Anthony" the neo-nazi, except in the warrant. YOU don't understand the arguments or BV's complete misreading of Frege (who doesn't believe in "truthmakers" either, or empirical knowledge, Ock.)<br /><br /><br />You don't understand the point at all, since you don't even know what a syllogism is, or what the realism/nominalism debate is (but we're getting your e-mail, ASAP, satanist,and vallicella's--then we'll get some "truthmakers"Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-35252141643328710862011-11-11T14:11:46.466+00:002011-11-11T14:11:46.466+00:00I'm going to substitute "belief" for...I'm going to substitute "belief" for "thought"...<br /><br />This desk doesn't cause a belief that this desk exists to become true, as in, the belief was false, and then the desk appeared, and belief became true. A false belief, so long as it exists, is false. A true belief, so long as it exists, is true. (*)<br /><br />On the other hand, I can see saying that my belief that this desk exists is true <i>because</i> this desk exists.<br /><br />(*) If anything, the existence of the desk is a cause for the existence of my belief that the desk exists.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-83815333791855358442011-11-11T13:28:40.775+00:002011-11-11T13:28:40.775+00:00By the way, lest anyone make the same mistake as t...By the way, lest anyone make the same mistake as the one who shall not be named (unless and until he starts behaving), I by no means am in full agreement with Vallicella.<br /><br />I'm not in full disagreement with him either, though. I think he's right that you don't understand what a truthmaker is. That T is the truthmaker for a true proposition that T exists, is inherent in the very idea of truthmakers. The only real question is what propositions, if any, which are not true propositions that T exists, have truthmakers.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-32568256721097125932011-11-11T13:25:41.746+00:002011-11-11T13:25:41.746+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-77053699161912886032011-11-11T13:17:14.404+00:002011-11-11T13:17:14.404+00:00>> That was the point of my remark about dir...>> That was the point of my remark about direct reference, which you may see if you read my post more carefully.<br /><br />No, I got that point. What I don't see is where "Maverick Philosopher" has claimed otherwise.<br /><br />You said it yourself: "Then, when the proposition ‘T exists’ is true, p will be true." But p is currently not true, and "T exists" is currently not true. In fact not-p is currently true, and "T does not exist" is currently true.<br /><br />>> Maverick says "But the thought is not just true; it is true <i>because</i> of the way things are 'outside' my mind.<br /><br />Ah, I see what you're saying. You're saying that "the truthmaker causes the thought to be true" is equivalent to "the truthmaker causes the truthmaker to exist", since "the truthmaker exists" is equivalent to "the thought [I'd say, proposition] is true".<br /><br />On that point, I guess I agree. A truthmaker doesn't "cause a thought to become true".<br /><br />I don't know if this was a misphrasing or an error in understanding. But I don't think the claim that a truthmaker "causes a thought to become true" is inherent in the idea of a truthmaker.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-11643971758928491262011-11-11T12:36:19.685+00:002011-11-11T12:36:19.685+00:00"Is the predication correct?" perhaps a ..."Is the predication correct?" perhaps a better way of stating it...ie, did you confirm the judgement as true or false--say, "Limbaugh is fat". But you needed to look at the object to decide.<br /><br /><br />You can hardly deny that, anymore than you could deny "ravens are black" (tho granted maybe someday a blue one will show up) . Its just basic instancing...Limbaugh falls in the class of the obese(even clinically defined--"X is obese"--a "property" as scholastics would call it).<br /><br /><br /><br />"Aynthony" doesn't understand Vallicella (--he probably likes BV's rightist reactionary politics.) And Mav P. does not get Frege's point on the ...difficulties of establishing Truth (or knowledge)from/via sense impressions. Frege usually sounds rather Cartesian--he'll accept ..the pythagorean theorem. Not...induction. (ie "ravens are black").Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-35437831992148132192011-11-11T12:16:25.399+00:002011-11-11T12:16:25.399+00:00Maverick says "But the thought is not just tr...Maverick says "But the thought is not just true; it is true <i>because</i> of the way things are 'outside' my mind.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-12165508770596382912011-11-11T12:13:50.109+00:002011-11-11T12:13:50.109+00:00>>It's not true, anyway. Whether it'...>>It's not true, anyway. Whether it's false or meaningless is debatable.<br /><br />That was the point of my remark about direct reference, which you may see if you read my post more carefully.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-77746247046783463482011-11-11T12:10:07.543+00:002011-11-11T12:10:07.543+00:00How's this for a definition of truthmaker? Th...How's this for a definition of truthmaker? That T exists is equivalent to a true proposition P if and only if T is a truthmaker for P.<br /><br />Is it clear what is meant by equivalent?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-8456092636995220562011-11-11T12:00:35.296+00:002011-11-11T12:00:35.296+00:00>> I claim that
>> (*) Socrates make...>> I claim that <br /><br />>> (*) Socrates makes the proposition ‘Socrates exists’ true<br /><br />>> is false.<br /><br />It's not true, anyway. Whether it's false or meaningless is debatable.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-77765475103265013562011-11-11T11:56:31.535+00:002011-11-11T11:56:31.535+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-5774070754429451382011-11-11T11:42:17.461+00:002011-11-11T11:42:17.461+00:00>> A truthmaker supposedly 'makes', ...>> A truthmaker supposedly 'makes', i.e. causes, its proposition to be true.<br /><br />No. Read "Maverick Philosopher", especially his comments in "An Infinite Regress Argument Against Truth-Makers? Round Two".<br /><br />"The truth-maker of the SENTENCE 'Tom is fat' is not the cause of Tom's being fat. He is fat because he eats too much, doesn't exercise, etc."<br /><br />"Truth-making is not a relation that connects one event in space-time with another event in space-time. It is a relation that connects a truth-maker to a representation (a decl. sentence, a judgment-content, a Fregean proposition, etc.)"<br /><br />It is perfectly acceptable for something other than the truthmaker itself to "cause the truthmaker to come into existence."Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-6460262517104252172011-11-11T11:35:14.994+00:002011-11-11T11:35:14.994+00:00>> I claim that
>> (*) Socrates make...>> I claim that <br /><br />>> (*) Socrates makes the proposition ‘Socrates exists’ true<br /><br />>> is false.<br /><br />It is. Nothing makes that proposition true, since it isn't true.<br /><br />>> Maverick claims it is true.<br /><br />Where?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-7053585242088838032011-11-11T10:14:28.835+00:002011-11-11T10:14:28.835+00:00You're introducing another element--about refe...You're introducing another element--about reference, and verification,really--i,e we don't know whether Socrates existed or not. True, historical claims are contingent--Napoleon most probably did exist (attacked Russia et al)but..not necessarily in a logical sense. Either way trivial--in that sense, any contingent claim is not true--even "Obama is President otUS" --maybe it's a media hoax, etc).<br /><br />--also you misread the point on predication (as does Vallicella). Someone from China says, "who is Rush Limbaugh.?" Then an American says "Rush Limbaugh is a fat conservative radio announcer". , He exists, and falls in the classes of fat/obese, conservatives, and radio-announcers. The proposition, to be judged true or false, requires some observation of the object, and then the Chinese person would say, yes, "it's true that Rush Limbaugh is a fat conservative radio announcer". Judging a purported fact-claim as true or not requires ..observing the object being predicated about. It's not a regress. (tho....the "truth" itself is a macro feature of human thinking (and vision,usually).Not marked as true in nature,so to speak).Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-51181180013324851202011-11-11T08:15:19.309+00:002011-11-11T08:15:19.309+00:00>>Truthmakers aren't claimed to be about...>>Truthmakers aren't claimed to be about causality.<br /><br />yes they are. A truthmaker supposedly 'makes', i.e. causes, its proposition to be true. <br /><br />But not between physical objects, supposedly. A truthmaker is a physical (or at least an extramental) object causing a representation (a proposition) to be true or false.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.com