Objective correspondence is an incoherent idea on my view. Whether a proposition corresponds to facts is a subjective judgment. — Terrapin Station
So whether or not the proposition "the moon is independent" corresponds to a fact is a subjective judgement and not an objective fact? — Michael
And yet before you were claiming that it's an objective fact that the moon is independent. — Michael
These seem contradictory claims. — Michael
Then you're not examining the claims very closely. One claim is about how it is that (or in other words how it works that) propositions correspond with facts. The other claim is about the ontological status of particular objects. — Terrapin Station
It's the same thing. — Michael
What does it mean to say that it is an objective fact that the moon is independent — Michael
The moon being independent of us has nothing to do with our language. Why would you think that we're only talking about language? — Terrapin Station
Your claim that the moon is independent of us has everything to do with our language. — Michael
Sure, the claim, as a claim, has something to do with language. You don't believe that what the claim is about is language, though, do you? That's a really infantile confusion. — Terrapin Station
Okay, I'll answer once we finish with this. If one claim is ABOUT a proposition (which has something to do with language) and the other claim is ABOUT the ontological status of the moon, which doesn't have something to do with language, how are they the same? — Terrapin Station
No interest in meta discussion. And no interest in your avoiding what I just asked you. — Terrapin Station
I doubt that the definition of "convention" that you're using is "arbitrary." — Terrapin Station
other than that someone interprets it as doing so--or, in this case, lots of people thus interpret it. — aletheist
If your claim that the moon is independent of us doesn't correspond to an objective fact then it isn't realism. — Michael
I said I'll answer once we finish with the earlier dispute. Can we finish that? — Terrapin Station
Of course not--TS has made it quite clear in this and other threads that he is not a realist, he is a nominalist. Again, the usual caveats about labels are hereby acknowledged. — aletheist
No, I've said my piece. Your account of meaning and truth precludes you from being a realist. — Michael
"Lots of people" make it a convention. Just someone, and not lots of people, make it not a convention. — Terrapin Station
So when you use a word like "convention" where I disagree that the claim hinges on "convention" in any <conventional> sense of that word, what is your recommendation, to just ignore the word and figure that you must mean something else by it, something that I'd agree with?You are missing the point . . . — aletheist
Nominalism is contrasted with realism if we're scholastics talking about universals. — Terrapin Station
... what is your recommendation ... — Terrapin Station
Are they real apart from their instantiations? — aletheist
Can a conditional proposition--if I let go of this rock, then it would fall to the ground--represent an objective fact, even if the antecedent is never actualized? — aletheist
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.