...a proposition represents a purported state of affairs or a purported relation among things. A true proposition represents a real state of affairs or a real relation among things. — aletheist

Propositions are existentially dependent upon language on my view...

What's yours on this?

You are basically defining a fact as a true proposition, rather than as the object of a true proposition. This is inconsistent with defining a fact as a real state of affairs or a real relation among things. There is an important distinction between a sign (such as a proposition) and its object (such as a state of affairs); i.e., that which represents vs. that which is represented. There is also a third aspect, the sign's interpretant, which is the effect that it has on an interpreter. — aletheist

Nothing here jumps out to me as being wrong.

No, again, a proposition represents a purported state of affairs or a purported relation among things. A true proposition represents a real state of affairs or a real relation among things. — aletheist

Again?

Have we discussed this already?

No, I'd just say that the cat is on the mat and the cup isn't in the cupboard. Might stretch to say that it's a fact that the cat is on the mat and the cup in fact isn't in the cupboard.

Why do you ask? — Michael

That sounds fine by me. I asked because it would affect/effect how the conversation goes if I knew that much.

I want the origin of each and every dollar spent as a means to elect this man... Trump... to be traced.

Citizens United did not offer the power of free speech to foreigners. We know that the Republican Party didn't spend much at all prior to the general. Trump says it was out of his own pocket. That's one of his trademarked lies.

As I said, strikingly similar. Your insistence on the contrary is a nice demonstration of my point. Please continue — Benkei

Ah... come now, let's be reasonable.

Propaganda is in every society. In each, there are some people who believe that the propaganda itself is true. Some others who believe that the propaganda is true will also believe that because it is true, so too is some other thing that they already believe.

Strikingly similar.

I detest Trump not as just a person prone to perform immorally, but also as evidence - prima facie, no less - of what can happen in a society when all the moves have been made, when all the legal groundwork has been set, when the people have been led to accept some corruption, that allows a government to legitimize monetary/financial bribery.

In the guise of free speech no less.

I mean fuck... let's do some philosophy.

Here's what I want to discuss...


If it is the case that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon a plurality, and a plurality negates solipsism, then solipsism is negated by the way things are... which is the way it should be.

If it is the case that solipsism is a philosophical position, and all philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon thought and belief, and all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon an external world, then it is the case that solipsism is existentially dependent upon an external world.

Which of the two outlined arguments above would you like to discuss?

Claiming to see and/or believe in X doesn't warrant our belief in X. — creativesoul

That knife cuts both ways.

An argument for solipsism isn't immune. Therefore, it's an invalid objection. Or... at the very least... it applies equally to both frameworks. Therefore, when considering it's value as an skeptical objection, it is utterly inadequate for supporting either, and equally applicable in it's scope of damnation to both.

They weren't conclusions. They were the skeptic's response to your claim "if there is such thing as an illusion of an external world, then there is an external world." This conditional isn't helpful unless it can be shown that there really is an illusion of an external world. But as the example of ghosts shows us, it's not enough that people claim to see or believe in an external world to conclude that there is at least the illusion of one. — Michael

Well belief can be false, and that's another matter altogether, although it must be kept in mind here. So, people can be mistaken about what they believe and/or see. It would only follow that they can be mistaken in their account thereof as well.

So...

Claiming to see and/or believe in X doesn't warrant our belief in X.

Is that what you're saying, prior to going on?

Some of the American public...

The relationship between the people and the 'leader' isn't the same either...

That's the first step.

If it is the case that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon a plurality, and a plurality negates solipsism, then solipsism is negated by the way things are... which is the way it should be.

If it is the case that solipsism is a philosophical position, and all philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon thought and belief, and all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon an external world, then it is the case that solipsism is existentially dependent upon an external world.

Which argument would you like to discuss? Point out the premiss and offer a relevant and valid objection...

...as if the USA has turned into something like North Korea. — LD Saunders

Trump is not the USA...

Meh.

Reason is required for knowledge. Language is not required for reason. Language is a form of knowledge. — khaled

All reason is thinking about thought and belief. Thinking about thought and belief is existentially dependent upon language use. All reason is existentially dependent upon language use. All language use is existentially dependent upon shared meaning. Shared meaning is existentially dependent upon a plurality of users knowing how to use language. Knowing how to use language is knowledge. All is reason is existentially dependent upon knowledge.

Not accepting reason as the basis for knowledge is a completely untenable position. — khaled

And yet, I reject reason as the basis of knowledge, and do not have any issues with paradox or self-contradiction.

It only follows that your claim is false.

The kid knows what "there is a cup on the table" means... — khaled

Knowledge, as I have defined it (a belief that stems from applying sound syllogisms) is not possessed by kids who have not reasoned their beliefs. There is every reason to deny a kid that... — khaled

How do you reconcile this obvious contradiction?

All thought and belief is existentially dependent upon an external world. Seeing an illusion of a dog is existentially dependent upon dogs. Thought and belief about dogs is existentially dependent upon dogs. Taking an account of illusory dogs is existentially dependent upon thought and belief about dogs, thought and belief about illusory dogs, as well as dogs and illusions thereof.

The solipsist wants to neglect the fact that we know the difference between an illusion and what the illusion is of.

The notion itself is utterly meaningless if and when it does not necessarily presuppose both, the illusion of X, and X.

It's an abuse of language otherwise.

The fact of the matter is that such talk is an illusion of meaningful language use.

:wink:

Bewitched by nonsense.

There is no such thing as an illusion of the soul.
— creativesoul

And presumably there's no such thing as an illusion of a ghost? Yet people claim to have seen and believe in ghosts. So at the very least you must accept that believing in something and believing to have seen something is not the same thing as there being the illusion of that thing. — Michael

Well, at the very least I readily admit that believing in something and believing to have seen something is not equivalent to there being an illusion. That's not a problem.

In which case the simple response is that there isn't an external world and so isn't the illusion of an external world, even though people believe in and believe to see an external world.

So believing to see an external world and believing in an external world is not equivalent to an illusion of an external world.

I'm not following your logic to reach the conclusions you have.

That the fact that the cat is on the mat obtains just is that there exists the cat and there exists the mat and the cat is positioned on top of the mat.

That the fact that the cup is in the cupboard doesn’t obtain just is that the cup doesn’t exist or the cupboard doesn’t exist or the cup is not positioned within the cupboard.

So are you asking how things come to exist? Are you asking how one thing comes be positioned relative to another? — Michael

Do you use this notion of "facts obtaining"?

1. Things are what are describable and can be referred to.

2. A fact is a state of affairs or a relation among things.

3. A proposition is a thing that is or might be a fact.

4. A proposition has a truth-value of "True" or "False"

5. A proposition has a truth-value of "True" if and only if it is a fact.

6. A statement is an utterance of a proposition. — Michael Ossipoff

Ok. Something to play around with...

A proposition is or might be a state of affairs or a relation among things?

That can't be right.

This is question-begging nonsense. I could have an hallucination of something I have never seen before, for example. You are assuming that the world, including of course dogs, is not itself an illusion, in the sense of being somehow fabricated; by the evil demon or the mad scientist who has you as a brain in a vat, or whatever.

You just don't want to admit that you cannot deductively prove that there is an external world. Of course I think we should believe that there is, but that is not the point. — Janus

It's neither nonsense nor affirming the consequent. Gratuitous assertions are what rhetoric is. That's not good enough by my lights.

It makes no sense to say that I am assuming that the world is not an illusion.

If it is the case that all thought and belief are existentially dependent upon a plurality, and a plurality negates solipsism, then solipsism is negated by the way things are... which is the way it should be.

If it is the case that solipsism is a philosophical position, and all philosophical positions are existentially dependent upon thought and belief, and all thought and belief is existentially dependent upon an external world, then it is the case that solipsism is existentially dependent upon an external world.

Which argument would you like to discuss? Point out the premiss and offer a relevant and valid objection...

A solipsist is the one who's assuming that there is no external world.

The culprit - once again - is a piss poor (mis)conception of thought and belief(and thus of mind).

The external world is a ghost. — Michael

Or a goat...

A negative fact(potential;logical possibility;etc) is one that has yet to have occurred and/or taken place(actualized, instantiated). That which has yet to have taken place has not yet taken place. All states of affairs are what has already happened and/or is happening. If nothing has happened, there is no state of affairs. No negative state of affairs has yet happened. Thus, it is not yet a state of affairs...

Why call it one?

Why do they have to have something in common?
— Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make?
— creativesoul

You don't see the parallel? — Sam26

I wouldn't equate calling states of affairs "fact" with calling whatever we arbitrarily choose to call a "game"... a "game".

All facts are states of affairs on this view. Some are positive. Some are negative. The positive one's exist. The negative ones do not.

What sense does it make to say that there is a state of affairs that does not exist?

That seems to me to be not taking into account the existential dependency of the purported 'state of affairs'. Positive ones do not necessarily require our talking about them. Negative ones exist in only that way.

Seems deeply wrong.

Some states of affairs are not existentially dependent upon our awareness and/or conception of them. Others most certainly are.

Seems to me that the only sensible conclusion is that these so-called 'facts' obtain existence.

What are they prior to existing?

Can these facts be true? How do they do that?

Night Sam...

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name?
— creativesoul

Why do they have to have something in common? — Sam26

Because you're calling them all by the same name.

Do all games have something in common?

What difference does that make?

This reminds me of the arguments you see online about synthetic a priori truths exist or not — Posty McPostface

Takes some careful consideration, and an adequate framework...

Sam what do all facts have in common that make them what they are, aside from us just calling them all by the same name?

Well not quite. Sam is arguing that they obtain by virtue of actually existing.

Intuition isn't much to go on. — Sam26

That all depends upon what it's built upon...

It's a negative fact, as opposed to a positive fact, or one that obtains. — Sam26

So, a negative fact is a state of affairs that never actually exists, and a positive fact is one that actually exists(obtains)?

I'm trying to elucidate the part with the paradoxical obtaining of a state of affairs is mystical in some sense? — Posty McPostface

Well, it seems inherently inadequate and/or otherwise mistaken to me intuitively... We'll see.

However, there are some contingent facts that never obtain. — Sam26

So they're facts(considered states of affairs) regardless of whether or not they exist?

That we obtain facts from things it presupposes that there is something more to the world we see. — Posty McPostface

I don't think so. I mean the discussion has been about "facts obtaining" and what that means. How do you get from there to us obtaining facts?

Simply its possibility, i.e., if it's contingent. — Sam26

Modality then? Possible worlds semantics?

It's a paradox, no? — Posty McPostface

Perhaps. Show me what you mean...

Are you asking me to answer the question I posed to you?
— creativesoul

If that's how you see things, then go for it. — Posty McPostface

I do not normally employ such a framework. So, I'm here to consider it...