I am further of the view that there are two major categories of things. That which existed in it's entirety prior to language and that which did not.
— creativesoul
Isn't that the distinction Davidson rejects as the third dogma of empiricism? — Banno
So... how does the fact of the setting sun differ from the setting sun? — Banno
Isn't that the distinction Davidson rejects as the third dogma of empiricism?
— Banno
Yes, he rejects the conceptual scheme/ empirical content dualism, and with that rejection I agree. — Janus
But then we have an object (the sun) allowing us to put the sentence to use. Davidson says "nothing, no thing..." — ZzzoneiroCosm
SO the sun is not the thing that makes "the sun is setting" true...
— Banno
Particularly since it's not true that the sun does set when speaking of the actual sun. — Marchesk
But it it not the sun - that very thing, considered apart from all else - that makes "the sun is setting" true.
SO the sun is not the thing that makes "the sun is setting" true... — Banno
Particularly since it's not true that the sun does set when speaking of the actual sun. — Marchesk
We have an appearance of a setting sun. — Marchesk
Don't bite Banno. — creativesoul
We have an appearance of a setting sun. The actual fact of the matter is the Earth's rotation. — Marchesk
Davidson rejects truth makers... — creativesoul
So it's more the history of language use - the linguistic-holism-thing somebody mentioned earlier - that makes the sentence true? — ZzzoneiroCosm
Of course. It's just an example sentence. Let's stay on track. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Yes - but no - nothing makes the sentence true. — Banno
But I think it illustrates why truth is not quite so simple. — Marchesk
But I think it illustrates why truth is not quite so simple. — Marchesk
Relevance? — creativesoul
Being true is Davidson's focus. — creativesoul
Davidson also rejects talk of the facts, if for no other reason than such talk is somehow inadequate for translatability. — creativesoul
Althogh it is improtant to note that, so far as that essay implies a form of correspondence theory of truth similar to Austin's, Davidson later rejects any notion of correspondence making sentences true - in the article that this thread is about, as it turns out. — Banno
Althogh it is improtant to note that, so far as that essay implies a form of correspondence theory of truth similar to Austin's, Davidson later rejects any notion of correspondence making sentences true - in the article that this thread is about, as it turns out. — Banno
Being true is Davidson's focus.
— creativesoul
And what does it mean for a statement to be true? Is it enough to say, yep looks like the sun is setting! — Marchesk
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.