What the word 'horse' means depends on how the word 'horse' is used. This is not the same as saying that what it is to be a horse depends on how the word 'horse' is used, which is what you're claiming. You seem to think these two are the same, which is a confusion, whether or not you'd still hold the view once you differentiated them properly.
In fact I find your views kind of fascinating, almost to the extent that I would give them to undergraduates as essay prompts as examples of linguistic confusions for them to untangle in the Wittgensteinian mode. — The Great Whatever
Why is "triangles are three-sided shapes" true? Because "triangle" and "three-sided shape" mean the same thing. Why do "triangle" and "three-sided shape" mean the same thing? Because we use "triangle" and "three-sided shape" in the same sort of way. — Michael
Therefore if we used "triangle" and "three-sided shape" in incompatible ways then they would mean different things, and so "triangles are three sides shapes" would be false. — Michael
The way we use the word "triangle" influences the truth-value of the sentence "triangles are three-sided shapes". — Michael
And so by the same token, the way we use the word "planet" influences the truth-value of the sentence "Pluto is a planet". — Michael
Why is "triangles are three-sided shapes" true? Because "triangle" and "three-sided shape" mean the same thing. Why do "triangle" and "three-sided shape" mean the same thing? Because we use "triangle" and "three-sided shape" in the same sort of way. Therefore if we used "triangle" and "three-sided shape" in incompatible ways then they would mean different things, and so "triangles are three sides shapes" would be false. The way we use the word "triangle" influences the truth-value of the sentence "triangles are three-sided shapes".
And so by the same token, the way we use the word "planet" influences the truth-value of the sentence "Pluto is a planet". — Michael
1. When people referred to Pluto as a planet (not a planet) in 1980 they were correct (incorrect); and
2. When people referred to Pluto as a planet (not a planet) in 2015 they were incorrect (correct). — andrewk
It depends, as (nearly) always, on context. That statement actually has two time inputs, but they are hidden, making the statement ambiguous. Let us define a predicate N with four arguments. N stands for 'noun' - common noun in fact.The question, though, is whether or not is correct now to say that Pluto was a planet. — Michael
The question, though, is whether or not is correct now to say that Pluto was a planet. — Michael
So the question is; what is criterion X, and has Pluto ever met it? If criterion X is some set of material characteristics, and if Pluto has never had these material characteristics, then Pluto has never been a planet. — Michael
To be a planet, then, is to be named a planet. — Michael
Is there a difference between being a planet and being called a planet? — Michael
Here's my question: what is the philosophical import of all this? I think I see the puzzle, but I don't see any far reaching implications here. — Hanover
If Pluto was a planet, and nothing about Pluto has changed in such a way as to render it no longer a planet, then Pluto is still a planet.
If Pluto wasn't a planet, and nothing about Pluto has changed in such a way as to render it a planet, then Pluto is still not a planet. — Sapientia
If, on the other hand, Yaha- I mean Michael, is correct, then stoves became planets if you call 'em planets, because a triangle is a three-sided shape. — Sapientia
Yes, I agree with this, since you are saying basically exactly what I said in my last post. — John
Well, I can see where stoves will become "planets" if we call stoves "planets," but I can't see how a stove can become a planet. An object can't morph into another object based upon our classification, but an object can be reclassified however we want to do it.
Am I missing something? Can someone restate Yahadraes/Michael/Mr. Awesome's view? — Hanover
I don't think the question is "serious and interesting". The fact it can be answered so easily by common sense attests to that. — John
Am I missing something? Can someone restate Yahadraes/Michael/Mr. Awesome's view? — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.