guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:But talking about ambiguity to someone who has no idea of the importance of language to philosophical questions is like talking to a congenitally blind person about the color scarlet. In fact, worse.
For someone who hates ambiguity you seem surprisingly sympathetic to it.
More hit-and-run philosophy. You make a quick attack, don't explain it, and run away. What ambiguity are you talking about, supposing you are talking about anything at all.
Actually, ambiguity has its place, for instance in poetry. Just not in philosophy.
Why don't you try arguing about an issue, and even thinking about it, rather than just lashing out mindlessly?
kennethamy wrote:
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:But talking about ambiguity to someone who has no idea of the importance of language to philosophical questions is like talking to a congenitally blind person about the color scarlet. In fact, worse.
For someone who hates ambiguity you seem surprisingly sympathetic to it.
More hit-and-run philosophy. You make a quick attack, don't explain it, and run away. What ambiguity are you talking about, supposing you are talking about anything at all.
Actually, ambiguity has its place, for instance in poetry. Just not in philosophy.
Why don't you try arguing about an issue, and even thinking about it, rather than just lashing out mindlessly?
This was not properly an "attack," this was more of an irony. An attack would be to say that you know nothing about logic, or that you don't even think about what you say. But I am not resented: you can attack me, I don't mind. And you can be ironic too, don't forget.
Back to the issue, have you ever asked yourself where syntactic ambiguity comes from? Take the statement "every truth is necessarily true." If truth is just an object (a state of affairs, a bunch of symbols, or both), then "necessarily" refers to "is true." If truth is just a thought (an image, a memory, or both), "necessarily" refers to "every truth is true." However:
1. The object of a truth can be true only within a thought (anything true depends on its own truth): by referring to "is true," necessity must also refer to "every truth is true" (just ask: what is necessarily true?).
2. The truth of a thought can be true only as the truth of something else (a truth depends on something true): by referring to "every truth is true," necessity must also refer to "is true" (just ask: what is this necessary truth?).
The only way out of this boring alternation (from which precisely comes the boringness of symbolic logic) is a truth being the thought about an object, by which "necessarily" refers to both "is true" and "every truth is true" (otherwise, how could "every truth is necessarily true" and "necessarily every truth is true" mean the same in plain English?) Which is also the true basis for the two unilateral interpretations of symbolic logic - here, a "syntactic ambiguity." Truth involves neither only a thought nor only an object, but both, although its focus is on the thought side. This way, truth is neither an objectified thought (a symbol) nor a thinking object (still a symbol): it is the thought about an object.
You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
guigus wrote:You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
I understand what you are saying. However, "every truth must be true" does not obviously mean (3). To make this sentence unambiguous, you need to be specific: "every subjective truth must be objectively true". And even then, a logician will not accept your use of "must be".
In English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true". So "every truth must be true" is (with good reason) likely to be taken to mean (1) or (2). A logician will insist that it can only mean (1).
kennethamy wrote:But talking about ambiguity to someone who has no idea of the importance of language to philosophical questions is like talking to a congenitally blind person about the color scarlet. In fact, worse.
For someone who hates ambiguity you seem surprisingly sympathetic to it.
guigus wrote:You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
I understand what you are saying. However, "every truth must be true" does not obviously mean (3). To make this sentence unambiguous, you need to be specific: "every subjective truth must be objectively true". And even then, a logician will not accept your use of "must be".
In English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true". So "every truth must be true" is (with good reason) likely to be taken to mean (1) or (2). A logician will insist that it can only mean (1).
ACB wrote:
guigus wrote:You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
I understand what you are saying. However, "every truth must be true" does not obviously mean (3). To make this sentence unambiguous, you need to be specific: "every subjective truth must be objectively true". And even then, a logician will not accept your use of "must be".
In English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true". So "every truth must be true" is (with good reason) likely to be taken to mean (1) or (2). A logician will insist that it can only mean (1).
What is a "subjective truth"? A statement you think is true? I once thought that Rio was the capital of Brazil. It isn't. Was the statement that Rio is the capital of Brazil a subjective truth?
What do you mean that "logicians will not accept your use of 'must be'?" Suppose I say that Rio is the capital of Brazil. Would you say that geographers would not accept my use of the term, "capital"? Are there two equally valid views of the term "capital" as you seem to think there are of "must be"?
If, "in English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true"." then does that mean that there is some other language in which those sentences are synonymous?
You are too tolerant of what you know to be, nonsense.
guigus wrote:Isn't that the truth; but natural considering the ambiguous nature of language and the elusive nature of reality... Colors are notoriously ambiguous... It is the paint companies that tell us what colors are called...
kennethamy wrote:But talking about ambiguity to someone who has no idea of the importance of language to philosophical questions is like talking to a congenitally blind person about the color scarlet. In fact, worse.
For someone who hates ambiguity you seem surprisingly sympathetic to it.
kennethamy wrote:
ACB wrote:
guigus wrote:You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
I understand what you are saying. However, "every truth must be true" does not obviously mean (3). To make this sentence unambiguous, you need to be specific: "every subjective truth must be objectively true". And even then, a logician will not accept your use of "must be".
In English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true". So "every truth must be true" is (with good reason) likely to be taken to mean (1) or (2). A logician will insist that it can only mean (1).
What is a "subjective truth"? A statement you think is true? I once thought that Rio was the capital of Brazil. It isn't. Was the statement that Rio is the capital of Brazil a subjective truth?
What do you mean that "logicians will not accept your use of 'must be'?" Suppose I say that Rio is the capital of Brazil. Would you say that geographers would not accept my use of the term, "capital"? Are there two equally valid views of the term "capital" as you seem to think there are of "must be"?
If, "in English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true"." then does that mean that there is some other language in which those sentences are synonymous?
You are too tolerant of what you know to be, nonsense.
Consider the planet Saturn with its beautiful rings. Now imagine a past or a future when there is nobody to observe it or even to know about it. Now ask yourself: has that planet a true existence? You will perhaps answer: sure yes. But now you notice that you did not actually eliminate everyone in the whole universe: it still remains you, the one making this question and imagining Saturn. To be fair, you must eliminate yourself as well. Then, you will notice that you cannot stop imagining Saturn while still imagining it, so Saturn must vanish along with your question. What do you get? Nothing. That is what Saturn is without anyone to even know about it, including you: nothing. Now you can understand what subjective truth is: it is our side of truth, without which the other side vanishes.
kennethamy wrote:
ACB wrote:
guigus wrote:You are missing a third meaning, which is the meaning I have been referring to since the beginning of this discussion. Let me show you the three possible meanings of the sentence "every truth must be true":
1) It possibly means that every truth object is necessarily true, that is, that whatever a truth refers to is in itself necessarily true. It is like if a true statement were already whatever it refers to.
2) It possibly means that every truth is necessarily what it is, namely, a truth. It is like if a truth were only a statement without referring to anything.
3) It possibly means that every subjective truth, like a true statement, necessarily corresponds to an objective truth, by referring to which it is true.
I understand what you are saying. However, "every truth must be true" does not obviously mean (3). To make this sentence unambiguous, you need to be specific: "every subjective truth must be objectively true". And even then, a logician will not accept your use of "must be".
In English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true". So "every truth must be true" is (with good reason) likely to be taken to mean (1) or (2). A logician will insist that it can only mean (1).
What is a "subjective truth"? A statement you think is true? I once thought that Rio was the capital of Brazil. It isn't. Was the statement that Rio is the capital of Brazil a subjective truth?
What do you mean that "logicians will not accept your use of 'must be'?" Suppose I say that Rio is the capital of Brazil. Would you say that geographers would not accept my use of the term, "capital"? Are there two equally valid views of the term "capital" as you seem to think there are of "must be"?
If, "in English, "every truth" is not synonymous with "every subjective truth", nor is "true" synonymous with "objectively true"." then does that mean that there is some other language in which those sentences are synonymous?
You are too tolerant of what you know to be, nonsense.
Consider the planet Saturn with its beautiful rings. Now imagine a past or a future when there is nobody to observe it or even to know about it. Now ask yourself: has that planet a true existence? You will perhaps answer: sure yes. But now you notice that you did not actually eliminate everyone in the whole universe: it still remains you, the one making this question and imagining Saturn. To be fair, you must eliminate yourself as well. Then, you will notice that you cannot stop imagining Saturn while still imagining it, so Saturn must vanish along with your question. What do you get? Nothing. That is what Saturn is without anyone to even know about it, including you: nothing. Now you can understand what subjective truth is: it is our side of truth, without which the other side vanishes.
[...] if there were no people there would be no object, and not because there would not possibly be no object, and no reality, but because the meaning of reality and object would be gone with humanity...
From the premise that I cannot think about X without thinking about X, the conclusion that I cannot think of X as existing without my thinking about X does not follow.
Since I haven't a clue what "true existence" means (as contrasted with just "existence") I cannot ask that question. However, I am guessing that you might mean, "existence" independent of anyone thinking about it (what philosophers of the 17th century called "real existence") and the answer to that is, of course, yes. And it is easy to give you many of example of "real existence". An obvious example is the existence of the Moon four billion years before any people existed, and therefore before it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about, because there was then no one to observe or know about the Moon.
Fido wrote:[...] if there were no people there would be no object, and not because there would not possibly be no object, and no reality, but because the meaning of reality and object would be gone with humanity...
Here is something with which I totally agree. That's it, you got it. I would just rewrite it in this way:
If there were no people there would be no object, and not because there would be no possible object, and no possible reality, but because the meaning of reality and object would be gone with humanity.
Here you do the correct distinction between possibility and actuality: without anyone to know about the world, it would become just a possibility, and without any actuality that world would be nothing.
Old stuff really: the world as idea... But for us, the world (and all forms) is a matter of relationships... We share life, and share the meaning of it, and that is truth...
Fido wrote:Old stuff really: the world as idea... But for us, the world (and all forms) is a matter of relationships... We share life, and share the meaning of it, and that is truth...
Please read it more carefully: I am not saying that the world is an idea. What I am saying is that you are missing the most fundamental relationship: that between idea and reality. Reducing idea to reality is as much a mistake as reducing reality to idea. Is is of no use to value relationships and forget about them when it comes to the most fundamental question, that of reality: what I am saying - despite its counter-intuitiveness - is that relationship is the most fundamental reality. Consider this:
Whenever we believe that something exists without us, we must forget about its being our belief, otherwise it becomes doubtful. As a belief, any truth is nonactually possible: although it may be true, it is not yet so - for being a belief, it is uncertain. And yet, whatever we believe to exist without us remains our belief: we cannot believe on anything without us believing on it. By forgetting ourselves as believers we are forgetting a precondition of truth itself, although that is the only way for us to be sure of anything: the only possibility of an actual truth. So truth is dual: possible and actual. For being possible - or a belief - its actuality must be possible - or believed - and for being actual - or belief-independent - it must remain possible - or belief-dependent.
kennethamy wrote:"before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about." That's it: without us the world is just a possibility.
You know what I meant. I meant the we know that there was a world of planets, and stars, an moons, which antedated the existence of people by many billions of years. So don't twist my words. I was reply to your view that it was impossible for any object to exist unobserved, and I replies it was possible. That did not mean it was only a possibility. Or as you put it "just a possibility". It is a possibility that Obama is president. But it is not "just a possibility". It is an actuality. To put the best light on it, you are confusing "X is possible" with "X is only possible", another confusion. There is a big list of them now. Everything that is actual is also possible. And so, that the Moon existed for 4 billion years before it was observed is possible because it is actual. Science supports what I say. What supports what you say?
By the way, since all you seem to mean by "true existence" is just, "existence" why not drop the "true" since it just is confusing?
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about." That's it: without us the world is just a possibility.
You know what I meant. I meant the we know that there was a world of planets, and stars, an moons, which antedated the existence of people by many billions of years. So don't twist my words. I was reply to your view that it was impossible for any object to exist unobserved, and I replies it was possible. That did not mean it was only a possibility. Or as you put it "just a possibility". It is a possibility that Obama is president. But it is not "just a possibility". It is an actuality. To put the best light on it, you are confusing "X is possible" with "X is only possible", another confusion. There is a big list of them now. Everything that is actual is also possible. And so, that the Moon existed for 4 billion years before it was observed is possible because it is actual. Science supports what I say. What supports what you say? Science tells us that the world was without us for many years, and (I hate to break it to you) but science also predicts that long before the inevitable death of the Sun (unless we are able to invent some radically new technology) the world will be without us again.
By the way, since all you seem to mean by "true existence" is just, "existence" why not drop the "true" since it just is confusing?
Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
Fido wrote:Believe it or not, I am not missing anything... I have looked at it from all angles, and in the end all we get of reality is a sense of the meaning, and meaning is what we share in our relationships.... Truth is just one of those forms we share meaning through.... It is impossible to grasp reality whole, impossible to say what part of existence we can conceive of in reality... What we can reasonable presume is that the end of humanity will mean the end of reality and existence because all we have of reality is a certain meaning, so that life and meaning are the same.... If reality and existence and truth were to exist beyond us then they would exist; but it would not matter... For it to mean it must matter, and for us to think of it, it must mean...
That's all fine, and I generally agree with you, provided you yourself do not fall into the idealistic trap, by reducing truth to our own side of it, which you seem dangerously near to doing: there is a difference between saying that truth does not exist without our side of it and saying it is only about our side of it. Although truth has its focus always placed on our side of it, and although whatever is out there does not actually exist outside of it (except as the nothingness of a non-actual possibility), it still depends on something out there, just as much as the actuality of that something depends on it, hence its duality.
guigus wrote:
kennethamy wrote:"before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about." That's it: without us the world is just a possibility.
You know what I meant. I meant the we know that there was a world of planets, and stars, an moons, which antedated the existence of people by many billions of years. So don't twist my words. I was reply to your view that it was impossible for any object to exist unobserved, and I replies it was possible. That did not mean it was only a possibility. Or as you put it "just a possibility". It is a possibility that Obama is president. But it is not "just a possibility". It is an actuality. To put the best light on it, you are confusing "X is possible" with "X is only possible", another confusion. There is a big list of them now. Everything that is actual is also possible. And so, that the Moon existed for 4 billion years before it was observed is possible because it is actual. Science supports what I say. What supports what you say?
By the way, since all you seem to mean by "true existence" is just, "existence" why not drop the "true" since it just is confusing?
I did not "twist" your words. You said that "before [us] it was possible for the Moon to have been observed or known about" just because you could not have said that before us it was actually observed and known about - which alone would make it an actuality - without seeming delusional. And you are wrong: science does not support that. Scientists are well aware that any theory is always subject to going to the garbage of history, so it is never the actuality of whatever it asserts.
