kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:24 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;170357 wrote:
None of which has anything to do with what I said. If sentences are neither true nor false, and the meanings of words are unstable, how is truth transmitted by words?


It certainly seemed to me that when you wrote, about my belief "that truth is independent of the symbols, including phonemes, by which it's expressed" that you were saying that I believed that there were unexpressed truths. But then, it is always a mystery what you suppose you are getting at. I don't see how the fact (if it is one) that sentences are neither true nor false implies, or even suggests, that the meanings of words are unstable (and I am not even sure what that means). But one thing seems clear to me, that some sentences express propositions, so that even if sentences are not true or false, what they express is either true or false.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:39 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170374 wrote:
I don't see how the fact (if it is one) that sentences are neither true nor false implies, or even suggests, that the meanings of words are unstable
I replied to a post in which you pointed out that words have no stability.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:44 am
@ughaibu,
ughaibu;170378 wrote:
I replied to a post in which you pointed out that words have no stability.


I don't even know what it means to say that, so I doubt I said that. If you want to point me at where you believe I said that, I'll try to remind you of what I actually did say.
ughaibu
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170382 wrote:
I don't even know what it means to say that, so I doubt I said that. If you want to point me at where you believe I said that, I'll try to remind you of what I actually did say.
You must be joking. If you dont remember what you wrote, on this thread, less than an hour ago, and you dont understand the meaning of almost anything I ever write, why the **** would I, or any other sane person, continue to waste their time on you? Pay a*******ttention, think, and contribute. Stop wasting everyones time by sticking your oar in, on almost every thread, with your attempts to match anything anybody writes to some position that's in your limited repertoire of second hand cliches.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 09:54 am
@Owen phil,
Owen;170361 wrote:
The Barber Paradox and the Russell Paradox, share a common formulation.

EyAx(x is shaved by y <-> ~(x is shaved by x)) and
EyAx(x is a member of y <-> ~(x is a member of x)),
are both instances of the proposition:
EyAx(xRy <-> ~(xRx)).

There is a y such that: Ax(xRy <-> ~(xRx)), is a contradiction.

Proof:

Ax(xRy <-> ~(xRx)) -> ((yRy) <-> ~(yRy)), ...when x=y.
But, (yRy) <-> ~(yRy), is of the form (p <-> ~p) which is a contradiction for all p.

That is, Ax(xRy <-> ~(xRx)) implies a contradiction, therefore, Ax(xRy <-> ~(xRx)), is false for all y.
That is to say, ~EyAx(xRy <-> ~(xRx)) is a theorem, for all R.

Therefore, neither the Barber nor the Russell class exist.

Does the Barber shave himself? No, it cannot 'do' anything because it does not exist.
Is the Russell Class a member of itself? No, it cannot be a member of any set, because it does not exist.

Note: There are instantiations of the predicate ~(x is a member of x) but there is no such class as {x's:~(x is a member of x)}.

For example, the class of cars is not a member of itself, ie. it satisfies the predicate ~(x is a member of x), but....the class of cars is not a member of the class of those classes which are not members of themselves.

It is false to say: if a predicate is instantiated by some individual then that individual is a member of the class determined by that predicate, for all predicates.


Yes. Both Russell, and the Barbershop paradoxes are member of the set of logical paradoxes. Some paradoxes are not logical paradoxes, however. For example, that I am the same person I was when I was born, yet I am in many respects different from that person, is a paradox. But it is not a logical paradox. Or that it is possible to know that p, and yet be mistaken is a paradox, but not a logical paradox. A logical paradox is one whose supposition turns out to be logically impossible, although it seems to be logically possible.
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:52 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170352 wrote:
It is fallacious to think that the meaning a word has now is the meaning it originally had, since meanings change through time. Still, it is seldom that the etymology of a word cannot shed light on its meaning. The etymology of the word "paradox" is from the ancient Greek words "doxa" and "para", which meant "common opinion" and "contrary to" respectively. So, a paradox would be something that was "contrary to common opinion" or, against what we ordinarily believe is true. So, for instance, of of Zeno's paradoxes is that if Achilles and a tortoise engaged in a race, Achilles could not win against the tortoise. That is, of course, contrary to what we ordinarily believe is true. We believe that Achilles would win such a race, hands down. In the present instance, the paradox is known as the Barbershop paradox. It begins by supposing a barber who shaves all, and only, those who do not shave themselves. And it asks the innocent seeming question, does that barber shave himself or not. And quickly (I hope) we see that supposition implies a contradiction, for if the barber were to shave himself that would be contrary to the supposition, and it the barber were not to shave himself, then that would be contrary to the supposition. It would then follow that such a barber (supposing, of course, there were one) would have both to shave himself and (also) not shave himself. But that, of course is a contradiction. Literally, no one can perform a contradictory action (not even God). So, in the light of all this, what is the answer to the question, supposing there were such a barber, would he shave himself or not? The only answer there can be is that the supposition is, itself, false. That it is impossible that there should be such a barber, because the supposition of such a barber implies a contradiction, and therefore, the supposition is, itself, a contradiction, since what implies a contradiction is itself a contradiction. So, the paradox is that it would be ordinarily believed (doxa) that there could be such a barber, but it turns out, upon analysis, that there could not be such a barber, and so, paradoxa, a paradox!

There are several lessons to be drawn from this example. Two of them are: 1. That reason can show that something does not exist. That is something that inspired the epistemology of Rationalism which is the view that thought (what Kant called, "pure reason") that demonstrate that something does not exist, and therefore, it is reasonable to believe that is can demonstrate that something must exist. (But this argument is fallacious). 2. Closer to home, is that we see that a person can hold a self-contradictory belief without realizing that he does. That should make us all more modest.


It is impossible to accept that any sentence has the same meaning twice... It is crazy to think of sentences as true... It is people who are true, and people who judge their communications true of false to reality...

The supply of possible paradoxes is endless, and yet people manage to express themselves... And Why??? I think it is because language is not just a form, or a form of expression and communication, but is also a form of relationship... Where people want the relationship they find a way to make communication and language work to that desired end...
0 Replies
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 12:00 pm
@kennethamy,
[QUOTE=kennethamy;170207]So why are we committed to the truth of sentences because we say that propositions are true?[/QUOTE]

Mrs. Anderson (the wife) asked handicaped little Annie if cats meow, and little Annie responds, "dogs bark." Mr. Anderson (the husband) shakes his head and says, "well, at least it's a true sentence."

A philosopher standing nearby thinks to himself, "not really." He thinks: The proposition expressed by the sentence is true, but the sentence itself isn't true, for it's not sentences (but rather propositions) that are true.

The philosopher later tells me what he thinks, and I wonder, should I believe him?

I don't know what sound deductive arguments can be made to show that sentences that express true propositions are therefore true sentences, but such an interpretation doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there a good inductive argument we can use?

If not, I think we should reexamine why it is okay to say that beliefs are true or false.
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 02:06 pm
@fast,
fast;170422 wrote:


Mrs. Anderson (the wife) asked handicaped little Annie if cats meow, and little Annie responds, "dogs bark." Mr. Anderson (the husband) shakes his head and says, "well, at least it's a true sentence."

A philosopher standing nearby thinks to himself, "not really." He thinks: The proposition expressed by the sentence is true, but the sentence itself isn't true, for it's not sentences (but rather propositions) that are true.

The philosopher later tells me what he thinks, and I wonder, should I believe him?

I don't know what sound deductive arguments can be made to show that sentences that express true propositions are therefore true sentences, but such an interpretation doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Is there a good inductive argument we can use?

If not, I think we should reexamine why it is okay to say that beliefs are true or false.

It is not propositons, sentences, words, or beliefs that are true or false, but people... If the object of communication is truth, if communicaiton is truth, and if false is miscommunication which is destructive of people and relationships, if truth is a virtue, and false is an injustice; then only people can be true, to themselves and to their ultimate objective, which is the survival of humanity... True people communicate the truth, that is, themselves, faithfully and truely... What is truth today in the sense of subject reflecting object may change, but our ultimate object and how we pursue that object should never change... We tell truth because it is essential to our well being...
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:06 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170352 wrote:
It is fallacious to think that the meaning a word has now is the meaning it originally had, since meanings change through time.

This is wrong, because "meaning" don ` t change over time.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 10:16 pm
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;170667 wrote:
This is wrong, because "meaning" don ` t change over time.


Then how come the word, "lunatic" used to mean a person who was influenced by the Moon, but it no longer means that?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 May, 2010 11:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170668 wrote:
Then how come the word, "lunatic" used to mean a person who was influenced by the Moon, but it no longer means that?

You are both right...They change and they are very stable..
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 12:57 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;170668 wrote:
Then how come the word, "lunatic" used to mean a person who was influenced by the Moon, but it no longer means that?


Certain worlds change their meaning, but the meaning do not change at all.


If the word X means Y in 1735. Now, the word X means Z in 2010. It does not follow that Y changes to Z. Y is the way it is.


I talked to you yesterday in this thread. If you have anything you want me to reply to, please indicate it. I don` t want to waste more time searching.
0 Replies
 
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 05:10 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;170667 wrote:
This is wrong, because "meaning" don ` t change over time.


Read and learn about the etymological fallacy.
TuringEquivalent
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 May, 2010 07:16 am
@Emil,


I read it. Why is this got to do with what i said? Meaning don` t change. Words can have different meanings over time.
0 Replies
 
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 12:35 am
@Fido,
Fido;170699 wrote:
You are both right...They change and they are very stable..


What "both"? As another example take the word, "gay". The ordinary use of that term (say) fifty years ago to mean carefree or light-hearted is very different from it use now to mean, homosexual. The very same term meant one thing fifty years ago, and means something quite different now.
fast
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:27 am
@Fido,
[QUOTE=Fido;170465]It is not propositons, sentences, words, or beliefs that are true or false, but people... If the object of communication is truth, if communicaiton is truth, and if false is miscommunication which is destructive of people and relationships, if truth is a virtue, and false is an injustice; then only people can be true, to themselves and to their ultimate objective, which is the survival of humanity... True people communicate the truth, that is, themselves, faithfully and truely... What is truth today in the sense of subject reflecting object may change, but our ultimate object and how we pursue that object should never change... We tell truth because it is essential to our well being...[/QUOTE]
You're using the word "true" differently than I am. I believe that women should be true to their husbands, so I believe that women should be true, and if I believe that, then let us hope that I also believe that being true is something women can do, but when I say, "I believe that women should be true to their husbands," I am not (in any way) using the word "true" as I would be if I said, "the proposition, 'the cat is on the mat' is true."

See, the word "true" is ambiguous, and that just means that the word has more than one meaning, but don't go away thinking that propositions cannot be true just because propositions can't be true in the same way women can be true to their husbands.
kennethamy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 07:34 am
@fast,
fast;171232 wrote:

You're using the word "true" differently than I am. I believe that women should be true to their husbands, so I believe that women should be true, and if I believe that, then let us hope that I also believe that being true is something women can do, but when I say, "I believe that women should be true to their husbands," I am not (in any way) using the word "true" as I would be if I said, "the proposition, 'the cat is on the mat' is true."

See, the word "true" is ambiguous, and that just means that the word has more than one meaning, but don't go away thinking that propositions cannot be true just because propositions can't be true in the same way women can be true to their husbands.


Or in the way that an archer's aim can be true. Why, do you suppose, people prefer confusion to clarity? I suppose that some of them just think that in order to philosophize you have to be confused, and that when matters become clear they are rather let down. It is a very peculiar idea.
Emil
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:00 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171167 wrote:
What "both"? As another example take the word, "gay". The ordinary use of that term (say) fifty years ago to mean carefree or light-hearted is very different from it use now to mean, homosexual. The very same term meant one thing fifty years ago, and means something quite different now.


And it is often meant to mean crappy today.

gay - Wiktionary

See meaning 6.
0 Replies
 
fast
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:25 am
@kennethamy,
[QUOTE=kennethamy;171235]Or in the way that an archer's aim can be true. Why, do you suppose, people prefer confusion to clarity? I suppose that some of them just think that in order to philosophize you have to be confused, and that when matters become clear they are rather let down. It is a very peculiar idea.[/QUOTE]

I can appreciate why such a thing would be said in jest, but after thinking things through a bit more, it may be that we'll realize that things just aren't as they seem.

When an adult talks about a child and says, "he's just looking for attention," then though it's an easy explanation for why the child is behaving as he is, things may be a bit more complex than first meets the eye.

If Suzy saw Sammy hitting a tree with his fist and then saw visible signs that his hitting the tree hurt his hand, then what is Suzy to think if Sammy turns around and hits the tree again? That he likes pain? I don't think so.

One, I don't think Sammy likes pain, two, I don't think the child is looking for attention, and three, I don't think that philosophers that bring confusion are doing so because they think confusion is the hallmark of good philosophy.



So, if confusion isn't the goal of these philosophers, then why do they always seem to be so gifted at bringing confusion? Some seem to even relish in it. What's truly amazing is to watch two people that have no clue what they're talking about thanking each other for what they're saying, especially when what they're saying is in opposition to someone they disagree with.

This phenomenon has just got to be a multi-faceted problem. First, I can't help but think that part of this is a psychological issue. Philosopher wannabe's probably no doubt have rather large egos that they will go all out (even to the point of looking stupid) to protect. Secondly, the medium in which our discussions take place may play a substantial role as well. No one wants to look as though they have been put in their place, so they'll kick like mules and scream like little schoolgirls thinking they're saving face. Third, and probably a more substantive reason, is that they haven't honed their thinking skills.

Becoming a good philosopher is like becoming an Olympic athlete. Without a lot of hard work and dedication, it's simply not going to happen. It takes skill, and like most skills, they don't come fine-tuned. A lot of people that bring confusion aren't doing so because they think confusion is a trait of philosophy. It's a consequence of having little foundation for how to properly (or critically) think.

Take me for example. I have no training in ice-skating. I have no training in dancing. So, it stands to reason that I can't successfully compete with the pros. Also, I have never taken a logic class, so though I can think for myself, I am still prone to make huge thinking blunders.

Now, that part you mentioned about being let down is very peculiar indeed. That's a whole nother story. People with no formal training in logic that have waded through philosophical problems for long periods of time will bog themselves down and solidify their confusions. The problem is that they are operating under a vast number of confusions. You can't show someone like that the error of their ways and expect them to respond like me (who is new to the discipline).

People's confusions are to themselves self-coherent. Coherent, yes, but true, no. As soon as you correct someone [and (oh say) dissolve a philosophical problem)], what they hold would no longer jibe with some other confusion or falsity they hold as true, so either you have to solve many issues at once, or you have to hope they're young enough that they haven't become dogmatic with their own odd views.

If you're frustrated with the confusion, then try moving beyond the scope of the logician and 'prove to'.
0 Replies
 
Night Ripper
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 May, 2010 09:30 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;171235 wrote:
Why, do you suppose, people prefer confusion to clarity? I suppose that some of them just think that in order to philosophize you have to be confused, and that when matters become clear they are rather let down.


Probably the same reason some people pretend there is confusion when there is none, because it gives them a chance to look oh so intelligent by clearing up the confusion that they themselves have caused. For example, when someone uses a figure of speech which is then taken literally or when someone splits hairs over some triviality that was misleading to precisely no one.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » True Sentences
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 10/03/2024 at 08:27:37