So you're reading the proposition as two kinds of propositions read in two different ways. Your ear and your sense tell you something went wrong. What went wrong is that the second, the "is" proposition, is (in this case) not convertible, whereas the "=" proposition is always necessarily convertible. — tim wood
:up:he short answer is that logical equivalence is just a matter of truth value, which in turn is just a matter of extension. All the other nuances of language are deliberately left out. — Srap Tasmaner
I seem to remember that old fraud Quine suggesting that one could turn proper names into predicates (maybe in "On What There Is"?): "Socrates" becomes "the unique Socratizer" or some such nonsense. — jkg20
You think that's bad. What about 'She is hungry'?I'd like to discuss the word ''is'' which logically translates to ''=''. When I say ''Trump is the POTUS'' I mean Trump=POTUS. — TheMadFool
You'd need to read up on Quine's writings on ontological commitments and how to avoid them to get the details. Basically, Quine's idea was that the "ideal" language of metaphysics should have no singular terms such as names or constants, and consist just of variables, quantifiers, predicates and rules of logical inference.Can you explain what that means?
Does that mean logic can't handle this particular nuance of "is" in language? Thank you. Your answer is the most sensible. — TheMadFool
The law of identity comes to mind first. Basically the law of identity states that for any given proposition A, A = A. I'm fine with that as without it we wouldn't be able to do any thinking at all. — TheMadFool
When I say ''Trump is the POTUS'' I mean Trump=POTUS. — TheMadFool
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.