The necessary truth of any truth

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

With this is in mind, what would it mean to say "my father isn't necessarily my father"? Well, it could mean that whoever my father is, could also not have been my father.

This is just bad English: "my father isn't necessarily my father" must be rewritten as "my father has not necessarily been my father": in the present, when my father is my father, he is necessarily so (A is A).

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
(have you heard about the present?).

Have you heard about not being a sarcastic douche?

Sorry, I know where you are trying to get. I understand in which sense you see the necessity of "A is A" breaking. But your way of getting there is wrong, for precipitated. First you must accept the principle of identity, then follow its consequences. If you do that, then the principle of identity will break for itself. It is useless to fight the necessity of "A is A," but this necessity will bring about its own destruction, since it involves a projection into the future: although in the present "A is A" is indestructible, its necessity leaks into its own future, hence contradicting itself (which is why some desperately try to replace that necessity by an absolute one). However, this only happens when the present becomes different from itself, hence no longer just the present: "A is A" is too early for that.

0 Replies

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

This is just bad English: "my father isn't necessarily my father"

No, it's not. Please contact your nearest English teacher and ask them if you are in doubt. I'm guessing that English isn't your first language if you disagree.

1 Reply

@guigus,

From what I'm reading, he's only adding a condition to the statement; both are proper in my books.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

guigus wrote:
This is just bad English: "my father isn't necessarily my father"

No, it's not. Please contact your nearest English teacher and ask them if you are in doubt. I'm guessing that English isn't your first language if you disagree.

Good English is not only about syntax, it is also about your syntax fitting whatever you are trying to say. If you were trying to say that you are unsure about James being your father, then you could say that "James is not necessarily my father," or even that "my father (James) isn't necessarily my father." However, to say that James could have not been your father, a correct English sentence would be "James has not necessarily (determinisms apart) been (made) my father." You are trying to say that James being your father is contingent, meaning it is a contingent (historical) result, so the sentence "my father isn't necessarily my father" is incorrect, since it considers only the present moment: you must say something like "James has not necessarily end up being my father" (this is the philosophical difference between being and becoming). However, James being James is not contingent: although James could have not been James (he could have not been born, for example), whoever he actually happens to be now is necessarily whoever he happens to be now (A is A).

1 Reply

@Mad Mike,

Mad Mike wrote:

Slow down, dude. We're talking about two things, and I don't think we're really disagreeing, we just have to separate the two issues. The truth of the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" is not dependent on the truth of the statement "Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador."

For the first statement to be true, Quito must in fact be the capital of Ecuador, so in that sense, it's necessary that Quito be the capital of Ecuador for the statement to be true. But that doesn't mean that it's required that Quito be the capital of Ecuador always and under all circumstances in order for the first statement to be true. If it happens that someday the capital of Ecuador is moved to Guayaquil, the first statement will no longer be true, and the second statement ("Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador") clearly was never true in the first place. That's what I mean by context.

Now I'd like to ask you to explain something: What is "every possible world?"

0 Replies

@Mad Mike,

Mad Mike wrote:

Slow down, dude. We're talking about two things, and I don't think we're really disagreeing, we just have to separate the two issues. The truth of the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" is not dependent on the truth of the statement "Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador."

For the first statement to be true, Quito must in fact be the capital of Ecuador, so in that sense, it's necessary that Quito be the capital of Ecuador for the statement to be true. But that doesn't mean that it's required that Quito be the capital of Ecuador always and under all circumstances in order for the first statement to be true. If it happens that someday the capital of Ecuador is moved to Guayaquil, the first statement will no longer be true, and the second statement ("Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador") clearly was never true in the first place. That's what I mean by context.

Now I'd like to ask you to explain something: What is "every possible world?"

Now I'd like to ask you to explain something: What is "every possible world?"

Any world which contains no contradictions. For instance, a world which contained a four-sides plane triangle would be an impossible world. But a world which contained a Barack Obama who was not president of the United States in the year 2010 is a possible world since that world does not contain a contradiction. But, of course, it is not the actual world.

1 Reply

@guigus,

guigus wrote:

However, to say that James could have not been your father, a correct English sentence would be "James has not necessarily (determinisms apart) been (made) my father."

No, your suggestion sounds awkward and doesn't make much sense. Anyways, you're a waste of my time so I'm going to drop out of this discussion now.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

I find you to be an intelligent poster, but man do you have a short temper. One person disagrees with you and you pull out a gun Smile

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I find you to be an intelligent poster, but man do you have a short temper. One person disagrees with you and you pull out a gun

It has nothing to do with being disagreed with. It has to do with how I'm addressed and what kind of progress is being made.

1 Reply

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Mad Mike wrote:

Slow down, dude. We're talking about two things, and I don't think we're really disagreeing, we just have to separate the two issues. The truth of the statement "Quito is the capital of Ecuador" is not dependent on the truth of the statement "Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador."

For the first statement to be true, Quito must in fact be the capital of Ecuador, so in that sense, it's necessary that Quito be the capital of Ecuador for the statement to be true. But that doesn't mean that it's required that Quito be the capital of Ecuador always and under all circumstances in order for the first statement to be true. If it happens that someday the capital of Ecuador is moved to Guayaquil, the first statement will no longer be true, and the second statement ("Quito is necessarily the capital of Ecuador") clearly was never true in the first place. That's what I mean by context.

Now I'd like to ask you to explain something: What is "every possible world?"

Now I'd like to ask you to explain something: What is "every possible world?"

Any world which contains no contradictions.

That is, an impossible world.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

I find you to be an intelligent poster, but man do you have a short temper. One person disagrees with you and you pull out a gun

It has nothing to do with being disagreed with. It has to do with how I'm addressed and what kind of progress is being made.

That is all your fault, since you insist in denying the obvious. Of course you can say "my father is my father not by necessity, but rather by chance." However, the true meaning of that sentence is "my father has become my father not by necessity, but rather by chance." The use of "is" in place of "has become" is your basis (a formal-only similarity) for taking that statement for an instance of "A is A," which it is not, since in "A is A" the word "is" does not mean "has become." In the sentence "my father is my father not by necessity, but rather by chance," the word "is" refers to history, by taking the past into account (otherwise contingency could not jump in) - which is why that sentence reads better as "my father has become my father not by necessity, but rather by chance" (hence my calling it "bad English"). On the contrary, by taking "is" rigorously - as meaning just "is" - that sentence just asserts that the being of your father is (necessarily) identical to itself, by which alone it becomes an instance of the principle of identity.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

No, your suggestion sounds awkward and doesn't make much sense.

Please notice how something "sounding awkward" is far from being a philosophical argument, just as much as its not making "much sense." No wonder this discussion ends up being a waste of your time, not to mention that of the others.

0 Replies

@guigus,

To summarize, the word "is" has a different meaning in each one of the following two sentences:

1. My father is (has become) my father not by necessity, but rather by chance.
2. A is A.

In the first sentence, the word "is" can (and should) be replaced by the expression "has become," while in the second it cannot. If we apply the meaning of the word "is" in the second sentence to that same word in the first sentence, then we destroy that first sentence. Hence, despite having a similar syntax, the two sentences have a conflicting semantics, by which the first one cannot be an instance of the second.

0 Replies

Sorry, but while writing my previous post I could't help remembering this:

http://tamunews.tamu.edu/2010/08/10/students’-understanding-of-the-equal-sign-not-equal/

0 Replies

@guigus,

(1) The time is 10:00 PM.

(2) The time has become 10:00 PM.

Either is acceptable. Calling one of these bad English just means you have a poor grasp of English.

This is no matter, though. In your haste to salvage your argument, you have admitted defeat already. Your original claim was that all truths are necessary but you have just acknowledged that "my father is my father" (or in your words "my father has become my father") is contingent. So therefore you've lost the argument. Some truths are necessary, others are not. This is the standard belief that most people hold. You've proven nothing new at all. QED.

2 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

(1) The time is 10:00 PM.

(2) The time has become 10:00 PM.

Either is acceptable. Calling one of these bad English just means you have a poor grasp of English.

This is no matter, though. In your haste to salvage your argument, you have admitted defeat already. Your original claim was that all truths are necessary but you have just acknowledged that "my father is my father" (or in your words "my father has become my father") is contingent. So therefore you've lost the argument. Some truths are necessary, others are not. This is the standard belief that most people hold. You've proven nothing new at all. QED.

I am a native speaker of English, and I don't think that "the time has become 10 o'clock" is something that a native speaker would ever say. I think that anyone who thinks it is acceptable has a poor ear for what is acceptable English. It is something a foreigner would say.

The question is what would be a sound, or even a plausibly sound, argument for the conclusion that all truths are necessary truths, since the burden of proof lies heavily on anyone who claims that, for all the evidence is contrary to that. And no, even plausible argument, has been offered. Thus, there is no reason to suppose it is true, and every reason to suppose it is false.

2 Replies

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

I am a native speaker of English, and I don't think that "the time has become 10 o'clock" is something that a native speaker would ever say.

It doesn't matter who would say what, only that the meaning is clear and acceptable. It's grammatically correct, even if awkward. I don't care to disagree with you further but it should be pointed out that I am trying to use (1) and being told that (2) is proper English. I would accept either but no matter since you're just backing me up by saying (1) is proper.

0 Replies

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You need to understand the difference between de dicto and de re. The phrase "de dicto" refers to the word itself and "de re" refers to the thing that the word picks out of the world.

With this is in mind, what would it mean to say "my father isn't necessarily my father"? Well, it could mean that whoever my father is, could also not have been my father. That would be a false claim though, since, by definition, whoever my father is, is my father. That's the de dicto interpretation. However, if we take it to mean that "my father (James) isn't necessarily my father" then it means that my father could have been someone else besides James, maybe Tom, Dick or Harry. That's the de re interpretation.

If it is meant in the latter sense, shouldn't the sentence read "James isn't necessarily my father" or "This person (James) isn't necessarily my father"? Making "my father" the grammatical subject of the sentence here is very misleading, since it gives the term "my father" two different senses in the same sentence. In "my father isn't necessarily my father", the first "my father" means "this particular person (James)", but the second means "whoever my father is". To my mind this is a misuse of English. [Note: I am not referring to guigus's objection here - that is a separate issue.]

Night Ripper wrote:

This is why phrases like "A is A" or "my father is my father" are somewhat ambiguous. Taken as de dicto claims, A is always A since whatever A picks out is identical to itself. However, if we use A to point to the thing itself then anything could have been a different thing. A tree could have been a person or an ice cream bar or anything else, just like my father could have been some stranger on the street.

Even on a de re interpretation, I'm struggling to understand what the underlined passage means. If James were not your father, he would still have the residual property of being James. But if a tree were not a tree, what residual property would it have? What is the difference between (a) a tree that is not a tree, and (b) a non-tree that is not a tree? It doesn't make sense to me.

2 Replies

@ACB,

ACB wrote:

But if a tree were not a tree, what residual property would it have? What is the difference between (a) a tree that is not a tree, and (b) a non-tree that is not a tree? It doesn't make sense to me.

The lump of matter it was composed of.

1 Reply

The necessary truth of any truth

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know