The necessary truth of any truth

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Finally, can't you see the difference between "all truths are true by necessity" and "all truths have become true by necessity"? In the first case, the expression "all truths" refers to actual truths (are true), while in the second case that expression refers to possible truths (have become true).

But "father candidate" is just as vague as "possible father". Until we are clear about what father candidates are and what they're not, we can't make any meaningful statements about them.

And whatever possible fathers or father candidates are, we should not use the plain term "father" as a shorthand way of referring to them (as in "My father has not necessarily become my father"), as this causes unnecessary confusion.

And can't you really see that "all truths are necessarily true" means not that all truths have become true by necessity, but rather that the very being of all truths necessarily consists in their being true?

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Yes, it would be a shame if all of his writing boiled down to just, "necessarily, all truths are true", while we thought he meant, "all truths are necessarily true".

guigus wrote:

Just replace "possible father" by "father candidate." I hope this helps you.

But "father candidate" is just as vague as "possible father". Until we are clear about what father candidates are and what they're not, we can't make any meaningful statements about them.

And whatever possible fathers or father candidates are, we should not use the plain term "father" as a shorthand way of referring to them (as in "My father has not necessarily become my father"), as this causes unnecessary confusion.

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Zetherin wrote:

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Not unless he knows the distinction between necessary and contingent truths. And, even if he does, he will just "argue" that since the proposition that bats have wings cannot be true unless bats have wings, that bats have wings is a necessary truth. And the agony will go on.

guigus wrote:

And can't you really see that "all truths are necessarily true" means not that all truths have become true by necessity, but rather that the very being of all truths necessarily consists in their being true?

So then you agree that some truths are contingently true? Good.

We've already said that necessarily all truths are true which is not the same as all truths being necessarily true since some are contingently true. So if that's all you've been saying then it's a trivial observation and this has been a colossal waste of time.

Yes, it would be a shame if all of his writing boiled down to just, "necessarily, all truths are true", while we thought he meant, "all truths are necessarily true".

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

The two sentences have identical meaning.

ACB wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

Did you ever have sex with a woman? (Or, if you are a woman, with a man?) Did you take precautions? What reason would you have to take them, besides disease prevention? Wouldn't it be that having sex with a woman puts you the position of being a possible father? (Or, if you are a woman, a "possible mother"?) Or you still don't know what I am talking about?

kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Not unless he knows the distinction between necessary and contingent truths. And, even if he does, he will just "argue" that since the proposition that bats have wings cannot be true unless bats have wings, that bats have wings is a necessary truth. And the agony will go on.

Only someone with a total misunderstanding about what I am saying would possibly believe that I would say something like that.

guigus wrote:

ACB wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

Did you ever have sex with a woman? (Or, if you are a woman, with a man?) Did you take precautions? What reason would you have to take them, besides disease prevention? Wouldn't it be that having sex with a woman puts you the position of being a possible father? (Or, if you are a woman, a "possible mother"?) Or you still don't know what I am talking about?

Possible fathers are not a particular kind of father as is generous father or reluctant father. "Possible fathers" are just males who might become fathers under certain conditions. The trouble is that you are reifying the term "possible father".

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

ACB wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

Wait, and what is your issue here?

Two things. Firstly, I have no idea what "possible father" (or "father candidate") means. Can we have a non-circular definition, please?

Secondly, statements such as "my father is not necessarily my father" or "my father has not necessarily become my father" commit the fallacy of equivocation, since (as I have explained) they use the term "my father" in two different senses.

Did you ever have sex with a woman? (Or, if you are a woman, with a man?) Did you take precautions? What reason would you have to take them, besides disease prevention? Wouldn't it be that having sex with a woman puts you the position of being a possible father? (Or, if you are a woman, a "possible mother"?) Or you still don't know what I am talking about?

Possible fathers are not a particular kind of father as is generous father or reluctant father. "Possible fathers" are just males who might become fathers under certain conditions. The trouble is that you are reifying the term "possible father".

Did you notice that your arguments are becoming increasingly far-fetched? So lets dig in: did you notice the essential difference between "generous father" and "possible father"? Let me remember you: the first is either a possibility or an actuality, while the second is expressly a possibility. But you have problems with possibilities, since for you they are not real, right? So for you anyone that takes a possibility seriously is "reifying" it. That is, if your girlfriend tells you to take precautions before sex, you tell her: baby, you are reifying this possibility...

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Not unless he knows the distinction between necessary and contingent truths. And, even if he does, he will just "argue" that since the proposition that bats have wings cannot be true unless bats have wings, that bats have wings is a necessary truth. And the agony will go on.

Only someone with a total misunderstanding about what I am saying would possibly believe that I would say something like that.

It follows that you have a total misunderstanding of what you are saying, which seems to me highly plausible.

And here is the proof:

Zethwrote:
Yes, it would be a shame if all of his writing boiled down to just, "necessarily, all truths are true", while we thought he meant, "all truths are necessarily true".
And guigus replied:
The two sentences have identical meaning. What you thought is that I was saying that "all truths are necessary," which is more a misreading than a misunderstanding.

kennethamy wrote:

guigus wrote:

kennethamy wrote:

Zetherin wrote:

guigus wrote:

There is yet another way in which "my father is my father" can be regarded as contingent, which is by (still improperly) meaning "James is my father." However, the proper meaning of "my father is my father" is either:

1. Whoever is my father is whoever is my father.
2. James is James.

None of which is contingent.

"Bats have wings" is a contingent truth. Do you agree?

If so, end of discussion. Right?

Not unless he knows the distinction between necessary and contingent truths. And, even if he does, he will just "argue" that since the proposition that bats have wings cannot be true unless bats have wings, that bats have wings is a necessary truth. And the agony will go on.

Only someone with a total misunderstanding about what I am saying would possibly believe that I would say something like that.

It follows that you have a total misunderstanding of what you are saying, which seems to me highly plausible.

And here is the proof:

Zethwrote:
Yes, it would be a shame if all of his writing boiled down to just, "necessarily, all truths are true", while we thought he meant, "all truths are necessarily true".
And guigus replied:
The two sentences have identical meaning. What you thought is that I was saying that "all truths are necessary," which is more a misreading than a misunderstanding.

Sorry, but I didn't quite understand how this can be a proof of my being wrong, so let me clarify, since you certainly understood something else. I said that:

1. The statement "necessarily, all truths are true" and "all truths are necessarily true" have identical meanings (at least for me), the same way "it must be that A is A" and "A must be A" have identical meanings.
2. The meaning you ascribe to "all truths are necessarily true" reads correctly as "all truths are necessary."
3. What I mean is "necessarily, all truths are true" or "all truths are necessarily true," which are the same to me, and not "all truths are necessary," which would be a form of determinism.

That's what I said, although you misunderstood it in some way.