But what if all they are doing is playing instrumental music? Base riffs an lead solos. A language without truth. — Banno
disagree. Can you see why, after reading this thread? — Banno
"So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?" -- It is what human beings say that is true and false, and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.
I have a vague recollection of Feyerabend talking as if language games were incommensurable. If he did, I think he was wrong. Chess 960 is still chess. — Banno
It is curious to read everywhere “Why didn’t Aristotle do the actual experiment?”. I would retort: “Those writing this, why don’t they do the actual experiment?”. They would find Aristotle right.
...there does not seem to be much hope for a test that a conceptual scheme is radically different from ours if that test depends on the assumption that we can divorce the notion of truth from that of translation.
if your scheme is not intended to be true but merely predictive, then it's not a conceptual scheme of the sort being discussed here, and is irrelevant. — Banno
if your scheme divides the world into stuff and what we do with it then it is based on a false premise. — Banno
See PI 241.
"So you are saying that human agreement decides what is true and what is false?" -- It is what human beings say that is true and false, and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.
Have a read of thereabouts. Lots of parallels. — Banno
I was trying to go without ever actually reading Wittgenstein. :shade: — frank
Why cut yourself off? He's as interesting as any other philosopher. — ZzzoneiroCosm
What, then, can we say about being true?
T-sentences present a bare minimum It's pretty much undeniable that: "p" is true if and only if p.
Of course, plenty will deny it, especially in an on-line philosophy forum where denying stuff is what we do. From what I've seen over time, those who deny T-sentences simple have not understood them.
I just deleted a detailed account of the bits of a T-sentence, because on thinking about it its probably better to keep it simple. Folk over-think them far too much.
Yet the totality of such English sentences uniquely determines the extension of the concept of truth for English.
So here we have the whole of the truth.
Who'd have thought it could be so simple.
What we must agree on is that any theory of truth that does not stand in good stead with convention T can be rejected out of hand.
We ought also note Tarski's generalisation.
s is true IFF p
in which "s" is some statement and "p" is a translation of that statement. — Banno
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.