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? And yet before you were claiming that it's an objective fact that the moon is independent. These seem contradictory claims.

I doubt that the definition of "convention" that you're using is "arbitrary." I don't know what definition you're using exactly, though.

I'm using standard dictionary definitions such as "general agreement or consent; accepted usage, especially as a standard of procedure," "a set of agreed, stipulated, or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms, or criteria, often taking the form of a custom," or "a way in which something is usually done, especially within a particular area or activity"

So whether or not the proposition "the moon is independent" corresponds to a fact is a subjective judgement and not an objective fact? — Michael

Correct.

And yet before you were claiming that it's an objective fact that the moon is independent. — Michael

Correct.

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.

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. What does it mean to say that it is an objective fact that the moon is independent if not that the proposition "the moon is independent" corresponds to an objective fact?

It's the same thing. — Michael

What?? You're seriously saying that how it is that propositions correspond with facts is identical to the ontological status of objects like the moon?

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?

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. How am I to make sense of this claim. Does your claim that the moon is independent of us correspond to an objective fact or not?

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.

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

You're not answering the question. Does your claim that the moon is independent of us correspond to an objective fact or not?

You didn't answer mine to my satisfaction.

Do you believe that what the claim is about is language?

I had said: "The other claim is ABOUT the ontological status of particular objects."

No, I don't think your claim is about language. Now, answer my question. Does your claim correspond to an objective fact?

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?

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

You did this every time. You refuse to answer my questions and instead insist that I keep answering every one of yours.

So I'm not going to even ask you a question. I'm just going to tell you what's going on. If your claim that the moon is independent of us doesn't correspond to an objective fact then it isn't realism.

No interest in meta discussion. And no interest in you avoiding what I just asked you.

No interest in meta discussion. And no interest in your avoiding what I just asked you. — Terrapin Station

I have every interest in a discussion. But discussion isn't a one way straight. We both provide answers to questions.

And accusing me of avoiding is beyond hypocritical.

I said I'll answer once we finish with the earlier dispute. Can we finish that?

I doubt that the definition of "convention" that you're using is "arbitrary." — Terrapin Station

It is arbitrary in the sense that there is no particular reason why that particular arrangement of those particular marks on a page (or pixels on a screen) represents what it does, other than that someone interprets it as doing so--or, in this case, lots of people thus interpret it. It does not resemble its object in any way, and there is no direct causal connection with its object.

other than that someone interprets it as doing so--or, in this case, lots of people thus interpret it. — aletheist

"Lots of people" make it a convention. Just someone, and not lots of people, make it not a convention.

If your claim that the moon is independent of us doesn't correspond to an objective fact then it isn't realism. — Michael

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.

I said I'll answer once we finish with the earlier dispute. Can we finish that? — Terrapin Station

No, I've said my piece. Your account of meaning and truth precludes you from being a realist. At best it's quasi-realism/fictionalism. At worse it's a contradiction.

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

Nominalism is contrasted with realism if we're scholastics talking about universals.

Since the context isn't that, and we're hundreds of years on, your comment doesn't make sense.

No, I've said my piece. Your account of meaning and truth precludes you from being a realist. — Michael

Okay, and I'll correct you and we'll go through all of this again next time you mention it and I've got the time. That will be fun. ;-)

"Lots of people" make it a convention. Just someone, and not lots of people, make it not a convention. — Terrapin Station

You are missing the point. I am looking at HOW a particular sign represents its object. There are only three options--by resemblance (icon), by direct connection (index), or by convention (symbol). If the word "convention" is what bothers you, then just substitute the notion that a symbol represents its object only because it will be interpreted as doing so. Suppose I designate "glutchski" as a made-up word that represents the moon in my private thoughts. It is a symbol, because I will interpret it as representing the moon, even if no one else ever does.

You are missing the point . . . — aletheist

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?

Nominalism is contrasted with realism if we're scholastics talking about universals. — Terrapin Station

Or if we are PF participants talking about whether possibilities and habits are real, not just existents; but that is another thread. I am not sure what we are talking about in this one now.

Haha (and what was the habit thread? I don't recall seeing that one.)

... what is your recommendation ... — Terrapin Station

I just tried to clarify what I meant. A symbol represents its object only because it will be interpreted as doing so, not because of any resemblance or direct connection.

Okay, we agree on that, although I'd clarify that it might be interpreted as representing whatever it's taken to represent because of resemblance (per interpretation) and maybe per direct connection (again per interpretation).

Habits, necessities, laws, regularities--take your pick. Are they real apart from their instantiations? 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?

Are they real apart from their instantiations? — aletheist

No on my view.

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

Yes on my view, but it's not representing something (real) that's not actualized.