Sure, so is Herbert Hoover president now?
It seems like a tautology isn't sufficient to make ontological claims about what obtains at a particular time, no? — Terrapin Station
Oh my god, what a joke. It's just a way of wording it which is relative or conditional, and yet maintains objectivity. Meaning is relative to the language rule. It's also a very common way of speaking: "What does 'chein' mean in English?", "It means 'dog' in English", "Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with that word in English, what does it mean?", "The word 'dog' in English means a furry creature with four legs and a tail which barks". — S
What's your point? That wasn't what I intended. I was contrasting my logic with psychologism logic to show you why it wouldn't change from beforehand to afterwards. There is nothing in my logic to imply that it would change. — S
If it obtains beforehand, and the same conditions for it obtaining remain in place, then obviously it will obtain afterwards. That was my point. — S
And it obtains in correspondence to the language rule. — S
So what about the other very common way of speaking that I pointed out? Is that not relevant? And if it isn't, why not? — Echarmion
It's only relevant in a particular context, and it isn't relevant in the context I have set up. The subjective interpretation is useful in a subjective context, such as "What do you mean?", but it is obviously inappropriate in the context I'm talking about. I'm obviously talking about the objective angle, which you might well reject, but your rejection doesn't effect me. The objective context is as I set out, for example "What does it mean?". Again, it would be very silly to apply the subjective angle in a necessarily objective context, such as the post-subject scenario, but that doesn't stop idealists from frequently doing so. Metaphysician Undercover is a perfect example of that: "But who would be there to understand it?", "But how would it sound?", etc. These are frankly stupid questions to ask an objectivist, or anyone really, given that there's explicitly no subjects there. — S
Isn't accepting an objective context for meaning already the conclusion you want to draw? Your conclusion that meaning is objective is inherent in your premise that there is an objective context in which to discuss meaning. — Echarmion
Likewise, there's nothing in "If Herbert Hoover is president, then Herbert Hoover is president" to imply that that will change, is there? — Terrapin Station
The conditions for it obtaining are exactly the point, though. What are they? Simply stating the tautology doesn't tell us anything about that. Simply stating the tautology is just the same as stating "If Herbert Hoover is president, then Herbert Hoover is president." Yep--that's a tautology alright. But it doesn't imply that Herbert Hoover is president for all time, because there are certain things that need to be the case for Herbert Hoover to be president, and those things don't remain unchanged for all time, they wouldn't obtain if no people existed, etc. — Terrapin Station
And how does the language rule obtain? If it does via something written, for example, then we're right back to asking how something written amounts to anything other than, say, ink marks on paper. Hence why I asked that question. Just repeating some tautology doesn't help. It doesn't tell us anything. No more than repeating the Herbert Hoover tautology.
There's also a rule that Herbert Hoover is president when he is, by the way.
And there was a rule (per your analysis) that "flirt" meant what I noted above. It no longer does. But there was a rule about that. — Terrapin Station
Let's see if we agree on a couple things so we don't have to go back over them:
We agree that "If x is/means/etc. y, then x is/means/etc. y" is tautological.
And we agree that the tautology in question doesn't imply that any x is/means/etc. y for all time, right? We agree that there is more required for an x being/meaning/etc. y to obtain for all time than just that tautology. — Terrapin Station
You're right and in saying that the text is nothing but "some marks on some paper", Terrapin is emitting (figurative) turds from his (figurative) mouth; the dictionary preserved in the cave, say, when humans have all disappeared, could indeed be deciphered by a visiting alien race in the future. If there is something to be deciphered, then there is meaning there, QED. — Janus
What I'm going by is empirical evidence. There's no empirical evidence of meaning obtaining outside of people thinking in particular ways. There's no evidence of meaning obtaining in any closed environment devoid of people, and there's thus no reason to believe that meaning would obtain in a world absent people. — Terrapin Station
The idea that it would ever be inappropriate, especially when we're talking about ontology, is ridiculous. — Terrapin Station
No one is saying anything about "verification" or anything like that. — Terrapin Station
What happened to what I just typed? There's zero evidence of meaning outside of thought. That has nothing to do with logical positivism. — Terrapin Station
Yes -- evidence, empirical evidence. Why do I have to spell that out completely every time? — Terrapin Station
And going by empirical evidence where it's inappropriate is what I call extreme empiricism. I reject extreme empiricism because it's unreasonable. — S
Wtf? I just said that it's ridiculous in my opinion to think that empirical evidence is ever inappropriate, especially when we're doing ontology. That has nothing to do with logical positivism. — Terrapin Station
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.