ut I think, for reasons that do not need to be gone into here, that such appearances are deceptive and that necessity is not a real feature of the world. — Bartricks
Even to make this argument there have to be necessary truths. — Wayfarer
If what you argue is only contingent, then it has no binding power, as it only happens to be true from time to time, if at all, and there's no reason anyone should accept it. — Wayfarer
Necessary truths comprise the relationship between ideas. 2 is always greater than 1, in all possible worlds, as a matter of definition. Again if it were not so, how could logic itself gain any traction? — Wayfarer
The reason you don't think that the descriptor 'necessary' adds anything of value, is because you're thinking of it tautologically - in effect, what about 'necessary' is 'necessary'? And the response is, necessary truths are true necessarily. If they were true on some other grounds, then they wouldn't be necessary. — Wayfarer
I fail to see why a truth has to be 'necessarily' true before we have reason to believe it - mere truth is sufficient. — Bartricks
If you had six beers in the fridge, and I took some of them, then you would have less than what you put in. How many less, would be contingent on how many I had taken. But that there was less, is a necessary truth. If you knew I took two, then there would necessarily be four remaining (given that only you and I were involved.) I don't see anything else to say, but someone else might. — Wayfarer
I admit that there do appear to be such truths - our reason does represent propositions such as 2 + 1 = 3 as being true not just here and now, but always and everywhere (that is, necessarily true). But I think, for reasons that do not need to be gone into here, that such appearances are deceptive and that necessity is not a real feature of the world.
That's precisely what I deny.
But instead you want to accept a premise just to deny it, and if you do not see the contradiction, at least you should realize how pointless it is. — Zelebg
Ok, let us hear your reasoning then. — Zelebg
Roger is a never married man. Never married men are bachelors. Therefore Roger is a bachelor. What would adding "must be" do apart from serving to emphasise the obviousness of it all?
If A is B and B is C, then A is necessarily C. — Zelebg
It means the conclusion “logically follows” or is “implied by proposition”, that better? — Zelebg
Plus even if they are synonymous, my position would then be that we can do without them and rather than saying 'logically follows' can simply say 'consequently is the case' or some such.
It adds constancy, assures predictability, determinism. — Zelebg
t says “no magic allowed”, no god or other some such potential devil could sneak up from outside of the equation and change the result or conclusion. — Zelebg
What does the 'it' refer to?
I propose is that there are no such things as either necessary truths or contingent truths. There are just truths. There are not two categories of truth. There are just truths and that's that. — Bartricks
Both truths still exist, — 3017amen
1. There is at least one true proposition. — 3017amen
If you believe it's true then it's true by logical necessity. Here's why:
There is at least one true proposition. Call this proposition A. Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that is false. Call this proposition B "A is false."
But if A is false so is B because B is a proposition. And if A is false, there are no true propositions. So A must be true.
It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions. — 3017amen
It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions. — 3017amen
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.