guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:What every truth must be true says is that no true statement could have been false.
No, it is not: saying that "every truth must be true" is rather the same as to say that no true statement can be false and still be true. I am just saying that a truth, inasmuch as it is indeed a truth, cannot be false. The sentence to say what you mean would be "every truth must have been true."
Which is taking truth to be an absolute... The fact is that our language works by way of analogy while math is pure concept...It is much easier to say something true with math...Though it will also be simple, usually
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:What every truth must be true says is that no true statement could have been false.
No, it is not: saying that "every truth must be true" is rather the same as to say that no true statement can be false and still be true. I am just saying that a truth, inasmuch as it is indeed a truth, cannot be false. The sentence to say what you mean would be "every truth must have been true."
Which is taking truth to be an absolute... The fact is that our language works by way of analogy while math is pure concept...It is much easier to say something true with math...Though it will also be simple, usually
"Every true statement must be true", is not the same statement as "It must be that every true statement is true" which is what you have just now written it is. I agree that a statement which is true cannot be false. And that is what, "It must be that every true statement is true". But that is very different from saying that every true statement must be true. I have pointed this out to you unpteen times and you simply ignore the distinction. You are, of course, right when you say that a true statement cannot be false. But you think that you are saying that when you say that all true statements must be true, and you are not. To say that a true statement cannot be false is true, and one thing. But that is not equivalent to saying that all true statements must be true, for that is simply false. You just persist in that confusion. And now I see that even Fido (of all people) now (dimly) sees your error when he tells you that you have to be careful in your phrasing in his post, # 4,268,083.
kennethamy wrote:"Every true statement must be true", is not the same statement as "It must be that every true statement is true" which is what you have just now written it is. I agree that a statement which is true cannot be false. And that is what, "It must be that every true statement is true". But that is very different from saying that every true statement must be true. I have pointed this out to you unpteen times and you simply ignore the distinction. You are, of course, right when you say that a true statement cannot be false. But you think that you are saying that when you say that all true statements must be true, and you are not. To say that a true statement cannot be false is true, and one thing. But that is not equivalent to saying that all true statements must be true, for that is simply false. You just persist in that confusion. And now I see that even Fido (of all people) now (dimly) sees your error when he tells you that you have to be careful in your phrasing in his post, # 4,268,083.
The problem is that I am not talking about statements alone, which is the way you see things. Your commitment to symbolic logic makes you forget that truth is a relation between a statement and a state of affairs, by which you keep reading the word "truth" as meaning "whatever is either true or false," instead of "whatever is already true": when you utter "must be true" you forget that whatever you refer to is already true, rather than something that must become true. I am capable of reading "every truth must be true" your way, so it means "no truth is contingent," and I clearly see how this is possible: by taking the expression "every truth" to mean "whatever is neither true nor false yet." However, you are so far incapable of reading it how I read it, which is not how you read "it must be that every truth is true." I cannot even agree with you about this last sentence, which has a very different meaning for each one of us, hence being true for you and for me for very different reasons: for you it is a tautology, but for me it means that everything that goes on inside your head must have a correspondence outside your head so as to be true, which is for me the same as to say that "every truth must be true."
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"Every true statement must be true", is not the same statement as "It must be that every true statement is true" which is what you have just now written it is. I agree that a statement which is true cannot be false. And that is what, "It must be that every true statement is true". But that is very different from saying that every true statement must be true. I have pointed this out to you unpteen times and you simply ignore the distinction. You are, of course, right when you say that a true statement cannot be false. But you think that you are saying that when you say that all true statements must be true, and you are not. To say that a true statement cannot be false is true, and one thing. But that is not equivalent to saying that all true statements must be true, for that is simply false. You just persist in that confusion. And now I see that even Fido (of all people) now (dimly) sees your error when he tells you that you have to be careful in your phrasing in his post, # 4,268,083.
The problem is that I am not talking about statements alone, which is the way you see things. Your commitment to symbolic logic makes you forget that truth is a relation between a statement and a state of affairs, by which you keep reading the word "truth" as meaning "whatever is either true or false," instead of "whatever is already true": when you utter "must be true" you forget that whatever you refer to is already true, rather than something that must become true. I am capable of reading "every truth must be true" your way, so it means "no truth is contingent," and I clearly see how this is possible: by taking the expression "every truth" to mean "whatever is neither true nor false yet." However, you are so far incapable of reading it how I read it, which is not how you read "it must be that every truth is true." I cannot even agree with you about this last sentence, which has a very different meaning for each one of us, hence being true for you and for me for very different reasons: for you it is a tautology, but for me it means that everything that goes on inside your head must have a correspondence outside your head so as to be true, which is for me the same as to say that "every truth must be true."
I believe, and am aware, that truth is a relation between a statement and some state of affairs. This is the correspondence theory of truth which I believe is the most plausible account of truth. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between: necessarily all true statements are true, and all true statements are necessarily true. It is not a consequence of the correspondence theory of truth that every true statement must be true. For it is compatible with the correspondence theory of truth that some true statements are contingent statements, and since no contingent statements even if true are necessarily true, it follows that it is false that all true statements must be true. Therefore, although I believe that the correspondence theory of truth is true, I also believe that it is false that that all true statements must be true. You appear to think that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths, and that, as a consequence, every true statement must be true. And, as I have pointed out (many times) your belief that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths is the unfortunate consequence of the modal confusion of failing to distinguish between: necessarily all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true. Again, the correspondence theory does not (repeat, does not) imply that every truth is necessarily true (or as you put it in your op, that every true statement must be true). And that is your mistake, and confusion.
I agree ! There's a lot more going on in the World than academic Philosophy. We should leave our comfort-zone and get in though with real issues. How to apply our Wisdom to understand what's going on with our societies, economies and the enviroment and it's resources.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"Every true statement must be true", is not the same statement as "It must be that every true statement is true" which is what you have just now written it is. I agree that a statement which is true cannot be false. And that is what, "It must be that every true statement is true". But that is very different from saying that every true statement must be true. I have pointed this out to you unpteen times and you simply ignore the distinction. You are, of course, right when you say that a true statement cannot be false. But you think that you are saying that when you say that all true statements must be true, and you are not. To say that a true statement cannot be false is true, and one thing. But that is not equivalent to saying that all true statements must be true, for that is simply false. You just persist in that confusion. And now I see that even Fido (of all people) now (dimly) sees your error when he tells you that you have to be careful in your phrasing in his post, # 4,268,083.
The problem is that I am not talking about statements alone, which is the way you see things. Your commitment to symbolic logic makes you forget that truth is a relation between a statement and a state of affairs, by which you keep reading the word "truth" as meaning "whatever is either true or false," instead of "whatever is already true": when you utter "must be true" you forget that whatever you refer to is already true, rather than something that must become true. I am capable of reading "every truth must be true" your way, so it means "no truth is contingent," and I clearly see how this is possible: by taking the expression "every truth" to mean "whatever is neither true nor false yet." However, you are so far incapable of reading it how I read it, which is not how you read "it must be that every truth is true." I cannot even agree with you about this last sentence, which has a very different meaning for each one of us, hence being true for you and for me for very different reasons: for you it is a tautology, but for me it means that everything that goes on inside your head must have a correspondence outside your head so as to be true, which is for me the same as to say that "every truth must be true."
I believe, and am aware, that truth is a relation between a statement and some state of affairs. This is the correspondence theory of truth which I believe is the most plausible account of truth. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between: necessarily all true statements are true, and all true statements are necessarily true. It is not a consequence of the correspondence theory of truth that every true statement must be true. For it is compatible with the correspondence theory of truth that some true statements are contingent statements, and since no contingent statements even if true are necessarily true, it follows that it is false that all true statements must be true. Therefore, although I believe that the correspondence theory of truth is true, I also believe that it is false that that all true statements must be true. You appear to think that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths, and that, as a consequence, every true statement must be true. And, as I have pointed out (many times) your belief that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths is the unfortunate consequence of the modal confusion of failing to distinguish between: necessarily all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true. Again, the correspondence theory does not (repeat, does not) imply that every truth is necessarily true (or as you put it in your op, that every true statement must be true). And that is your mistake, and confusion.
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"Every true statement must be true", is not the same statement as "It must be that every true statement is true" which is what you have just now written it is. I agree that a statement which is true cannot be false. And that is what, "It must be that every true statement is true". But that is very different from saying that every true statement must be true. I have pointed this out to you unpteen times and you simply ignore the distinction. You are, of course, right when you say that a true statement cannot be false. But you think that you are saying that when you say that all true statements must be true, and you are not. To say that a true statement cannot be false is true, and one thing. But that is not equivalent to saying that all true statements must be true, for that is simply false. You just persist in that confusion. And now I see that even Fido (of all people) now (dimly) sees your error when he tells you that you have to be careful in your phrasing in his post, # 4,268,083.
The problem is that I am not talking about statements alone, which is the way you see things. Your commitment to symbolic logic makes you forget that truth is a relation between a statement and a state of affairs, by which you keep reading the word "truth" as meaning "whatever is either true or false," instead of "whatever is already true": when you utter "must be true" you forget that whatever you refer to is already true, rather than something that must become true. I am capable of reading "every truth must be true" your way, so it means "no truth is contingent," and I clearly see how this is possible: by taking the expression "every truth" to mean "whatever is neither true nor false yet." However, you are so far incapable of reading it how I read it, which is not how you read "it must be that every truth is true." I cannot even agree with you about this last sentence, which has a very different meaning for each one of us, hence being true for you and for me for very different reasons: for you it is a tautology, but for me it means that everything that goes on inside your head must have a correspondence outside your head so as to be true, which is for me the same as to say that "every truth must be true."
I believe, and am aware, that truth is a relation between a statement and some state of affairs. This is the correspondence theory of truth which I believe is the most plausible account of truth. But that has nothing to do with the distinction between: necessarily all true statements are true, and all true statements are necessarily true. It is not a consequence of the correspondence theory of truth that every true statement must be true. For it is compatible with the correspondence theory of truth that some true statements are contingent statements, and since no contingent statements even if true are necessarily true, it follows that it is false that all true statements must be true. Therefore, although I believe that the correspondence theory of truth is true, I also believe that it is false that that all true statements must be true. You appear to think that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths, and that, as a consequence, every true statement must be true. And, as I have pointed out (many times) your belief that the correspondence theory of truth implies that there are no contingent truths is the unfortunate consequence of the modal confusion of failing to distinguish between: necessarily all truths are true, and all truths are necessarily true. Again, the correspondence theory does not (repeat, does not) imply that every truth is necessarily true (or as you put it in your op, that every true statement must be true). And that is your mistake, and confusion.
Taking a deep breath, and with Frank Sinatra's license, let me try again. After all, if I can make it with you, I can make it with anyone. To clarify:
1) What I am saying does not follow from the correspondence theory of truth, in which I do not believe.
2) I am not saying that no truth is contingent, in which I do not believe either.
What I am saying is that the statement "every truth must be true" means (to me, not to you) that for a truth to be true it must have a state of affairs making it so. And although the correspondence theory of truth also asserts this, there are many other aspects of it with which I do not agree. Finally, what I am trying to do is to show you how to read the sentence "every truth must be true" so it means that "every truth must have a state of affairs making it true," instead of "no truth is contingent." As I mentioned before, you must read "every truth" as "whatever is already true," instead of "whatever is either true or false." As I pointed out before, when you utter "must be true," your "truth" has already become something else: a statement waiting to have its truth decided by a state of affairs, as if there were such a thing. There is no independent statement, as there is no independent state of affairs. Statements and states of affairs come in pairs: they are inextricably linked, and they are linked by the necessity that statements have of states of affairs. There is no statement "first," then a state of affairs "later," then the truth of that statement as a result of their interaction. There is only their interaction.
the thread title was indeed prophetic. But please, carry on.
I agree with you that for contingent truths (but not for necessary truths, like all bachelors are unmarried males) for a statement to be true there is some state of affairs that makes it true. Why you should express this as every truth must be true remains a mystery, since in any ordinary meaning of the phrase, "Every truth must be true" that phrase would not express the statement that every contingent truth must correspond to some state of affairs that makes it true, and I think you believe that it does express that statement because of your modal confusion. But, if you are going to use a sentence to express the statement that every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affair that makes it true, then why don't you express that statement simply by just saying that every contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true (the correspondence theory of truth) rather than inventing some other statement which is: (a) false, and (b) does not mean what you want it to mean?
kennethamy wrote:I agree with you that for contingent truths (but not for necessary truths, like all bachelors are unmarried males) for a statement to be true there is some state of affairs that makes it true. Why you should express this as every truth must be true remains a mystery, since in any ordinary meaning of the phrase, "Every truth must be true" that phrase would not express the statement that every contingent truth must correspond to some state of affairs that makes it true, and I think you believe that it does express that statement because of your modal confusion. But, if you are going to use a sentence to express the statement that every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affair that makes it true, then why don't you express that statement simply by just saying that every contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true (the correspondence theory of truth) rather than inventing some other statement which is: (a) false, and (b) does not mean what you want it to mean?
OK, that is a fair question. The reason why I do not use the statement "every true contingent statement is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" is that:
1) I am not referring only to statements, but also to beliefs, memories, representations, and so on, inasmuch as they are true. Hence the expression "every truth," which refers to all that and more. So instead of "every true statement, belief, memory, representation, etc, is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true" we have: "every truth is true because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true." Or: "every truth is what it is because it corresponds with a state of affairs that makes it true." And finally: "every truth must (or it ceases to be a truth) correspond with a state of affairs that makes it true."
2) If a statement (or belief, or memory) "being true" is its "being made true by a state of affairs" (answer me: what else could it be?), then its being necessarily true can be nothing else than its being necessarily (inasmuch as it is true) made true by a state of affairs. Hence, instead of "every truth must correspond with a state of affairs that makes it true" we have: "every truth must be true."
Now you see why I use that statement: because it is the most concise one, which has the greatest expressive power.
That all dogs are dogs is axiomatic... Identity is theoretical, and can never be stated as fact... Rather we say: If all dogs are dogs, then.... Do you get my drift??? It is always to be proved that all dogs are dogs... Since we can hardly verify, we must accept it as obvious, which it is to a degree... Speaking as one who has dated a fair share of dogs, there are dogs, and of course there are DOGS.
Fido wrote:
That all dogs are dogs is axiomatic... Identity is theoretical, and can never be stated as fact... Rather we say: If all dogs are dogs, then.... Do you get my drift??? It is always to be proved that all dogs are dogs... Since we can hardly verify, we must accept it as obvious, which it is to a degree... Speaking as one who has dated a fair share of dogs, there are dogs, and of course there are DOGS.
I don't know what you might mean by "axiomatic", but if you happen to mean that all dogs are dogs is a tautology (as I already said) and therefore, necessarily true, then I agree with you. On the other hand, if you mean something else by "axiomatic" I will have to wait until you tell me what it is you mean by that word before I can say anything about it. Do far as I know, if someone were to ask me why all dogs are dogs is a truth, my answer would be that the statement is an instance of the law of identity, all A is A, and that the law of identity is a necessary truth. Whether or not it is obvious that all dogs are dogs, and obviousness is subjective, it is true, and moreover, necessarily true, that all dogs are dogs for the reason I just gave.
kennethamy wrote:
Fido wrote:
That all dogs are dogs is axiomatic... Identity is theoretical, and can never be stated as fact... Rather we say: If all dogs are dogs, then.... Do you get my drift??? It is always to be proved that all dogs are dogs... Since we can hardly verify, we must accept it as obvious, which it is to a degree... Speaking as one who has dated a fair share of dogs, there are dogs, and of course there are DOGS.
I don't know what you might mean by "axiomatic", but if you happen to mean that all dogs are dogs is a tautology (as I already said) and therefore, necessarily true, then I agree with you. On the other hand, if you mean something else by "axiomatic" I will have to wait until you tell me what it is you mean by that word before I can say anything about it. Do far as I know, if someone were to ask me why all dogs are dogs is a truth, my answer would be that the statement is an instance of the law of identity, all A is A, and that the law of identity is a necessary truth. Whether or not it is obvious that all dogs are dogs, and obviousness is subjective, it is true, and moreover, necessarily true, that all dogs are dogs for the reason I just gave.
That all dogs are dogs is accepted without absolute proof... It is not a tautology as much as a predicate, as are all concepts... As such it may be proved wrong at any time...
What do you think is the value of truth if it were not that we could reason further from that point??? Truth is always a predicate if it is to have any use, which is to say: value, which is to say: meaning... A tautology is a truth from which no other conclusions may be drawn... People should never get into that particular cull de sac... Instead, all truths for which no conclusions may be drawn should themselves be questioned... Instead of phrasing your tautology as an answer it should be phrased as a predicate: If all dogs are dogs, then... In that case we have found a use for a perfectly useless truth, of which there can be no such thing, because the truth should lead to truth, and if it does not lead anywhere, then it should be questioned, so instead of saying: If all dogs are dogs, we should ask: Are all dogs, dogs.... If truth, which is to say: Knowledge, is Virtue, then people should never accept tautology, but find in tautology a point from which to step back to the original point of contention, and re-examine...
Identities as a form of tautology is not an answer, but is a question presented as an answer... Much like a fraction is in Math... What is one divided by three??? It is 1/3... That is not an answer, but is the original question presented as an answer...
Sure:
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.
The above (as you can see) is a tautology, and I agree that all tautologies are true.
However, I must point out to you that it is false that all statements are made true by states of affairs. The statement that all dogs are dogs is a true statement. But there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true. The statement that all bachelors are unmarried males is true, but there is no state of affairs that makes that statement true.
The reason is that tautologies are necessary statements and no contingent statements, and only contingent statements are made true by states of affairs. If the contingent statement is true. Of course, if a statement is a contingent statement, is might be true, or it might be false (that is what contingent statement means). And, obviously, if a contingent statement is false, then there is no state of affairs that makes it true. So every true contingent statement might be false, since even if it is true, it might not have been true. (Even if there is a state of affairs that makes it true, that state of affairs might not have existed, in which case, of course, that true contingent statement might not have been true). On the other hand, the statement, all bachelors are unmarried is not only true but necessarily true, since its truth or falsity does not depend on the existence of any state of affairs, since, as you can easily see, it is true "by definition".
What you are saying is that necessarily, if it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs, then it is true that statements are made true by states of affairs.
