So how it is that a proposition is true when it matches something that's not true (or false) is that "true" is what we're naming that matching. — Terrapin Station
You’re giving “the matching” the name “true” there, not the proposition. — AJJ
That’s precisely what is under discussion mate. You can’t just assert your own view and expect that to convince anyone. — AJJ
But then if it’s a fact that the cat is sitting on the mat, then we must say that it is neither true nor false that the cat is sitting on the mat. — AJJ
This doesn’t answer my question of how it is that a proposition can match something that neither is nor is not the case. — AJJ
We're not saying that the cat being on the mat is not the case. "Is the case" is another way of saying "is a fact." It's not another way of saying "is true" BECAUSE "true" is about the matching relationship. — Terrapin Station
If “is the case” means the same as “is a fact”, then something that “is the case” (since that just means “is a fact”) neither is nor is not the case, which (since “is the case” means “is a fact”) is to say it neither is nor is not a fact. — AJJ
The premise of the argument is that if there no objective values there would be no facts. The claim is that without the former there cannot be the latter. This is a determinate relation. — Fooloso4
The premise of the argument is that if there no objective values there would be no facts. The claim is that without the former there cannot be the latter. This is a determinate relation. — Fooloso4
Where is someone saying that something be a fact, or being the case, where the latter is another way of saying "is the case," isn't a fact or isn't the case? Where are you getting that from aside from using the terms as a synomym for "is true" and equivocating? — Terrapin Station
The idea is rather that the values are a fact, somehow as a necessary upshot of facts in general. How that's supposed to work is left completely unattended, aside from saying that it's nonsense to believe otherwise. — Terrapin Station
It’s not that our beliefs determine facts. It’s that facts are necessarily things that ought to be believed, but not that what they are is determined by beliefs. — AJJ
If there are no objective values then there are no facts — AJJ
The idea is rather that the values are a fact — Terrapin Station
By objective values he means things we ought to believe. If there are not things we ought to believe then there are no objective values and therefore no facts. — Fooloso4
If there are no objective values then there are no facts... — AJJ
You’ll have to be clearer, I can’t make sense of that. — AJJ
Yeah. But that’s not to say that the very existence of facts is determined by our beliefs, but that a necessary part of what they are is that they ought to be believed. — AJJ
If there are no objective values then there are no facts (since there’s nothing that we ought to believe). — AJJ
Just start with this. You claimed that someone was saying or something implied the following:
"something that 'is the case' neither is nor is not the case."
Where are you getting that from? — Terrapin Station
If a necessary part of what facts are is that they ought be believed, then if this necessary part does not exist, if they are not believed, then they do not exist. — Fooloso4
If facts are true statements and there are no objective values then saying that there are no objective values is a fact. If we ought believe true statements, then we ought not believe the above quote. — creativesoul
And I contend facts do exist, which means they ought to be believed if that is indeed a necessary part of their existence. — AJJ
What is it that you contend and what is it that Clark contends? Is your OP a statement in his words or yours?
Is the claim that facts ought to be believed a fact? I have asked this question before. — Fooloso4
In what sense is being believed a necessary part of the existence of facts? Can something exist without its necessary parts? According to what you say, in the case of facts, it seems they can; and so, in what sense is believing them a necessary part of their existence if their existence does not depend on them? They ought to be believed implies that they are not necessarily believed, and so, being believed is not a necessary part of their existence. — Fooloso4
You still have to answer how it is that a proposition could match such a thing. — AJJ
Actually the word “fact” doesn’t even mean anything here. It means “state of affairs”, which means “is the case”, which means “fact”. The word just refers to itself. — AJJ
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.