So much for "Hume's Guillotine" ...They are true because of the role that each plays in a wider activity [ ... ] We might call the activities institutions, and hence call our target statements institutional facts. They are ubiquitous. Your spouse, your driver's licence, the money in your account, the job you have, the club you belong to, the school your children attend - all only exist as a result of such institutional facts.
And they are deontic. Each implies an obligation. — Banno
So much for "Hume's Guillotine" ... — 180 Proof
Notice that such utterances are not either true or false; if they misfire, it is in some other way than by truth value. — Banno
they are not true for the sort of reasons that
The bishop is made of wood — Banno
not until the structure of speech acts is shown to reflect the structure of our intentionality. — Banno
She is Queen because of biology, not because of a social activity. — Banno
For now the point might be that the aliens would presumably agree that allocating presidents is done using language. — Banno
Chess, ownership of property and the Ukrainian government are not states of affairs in the world?The bishop always stays on the same coloured squares.
This laptop belongs to me
Zelenskyy is Ukraine's President.
These statements are true. Yet they are true not in virtue of a "state of affairs" in the world;
They are true because of the role that each plays in a wider activity: chess; property; and Ukrainian government. — Banno
Then we agree that there are natural facts and facts invented by humans. As the inventor of certain states-of-affairs like democracy, we determine the nature of those states-of-affairs and the relationship between those states-of-affairs and the scribbles we use to refer to them. Different languages use different scribbles and sounds to refer to the same state-of-affairs - natural or social (I could argue that social states-of-affairs are natural states-of-affairs but that is for another thread).Outside of those social activities, these facts have no life. Outside of those social activities, they do not become false, so much as nonsense.
We might call the activities institutions, and hence call our target statements institutional facts. — Banno
Not following the rules of playing chess means that playing chess is no longer the state-of-affairs. The same can be said about someone stealing your laptop and revolting against the Ukrainian president - all states-of-affairs.And they are deontic. Each implies an obligation. Someone might move the bishop along a row, but it would no longer be a Bishop. To play Chess you are obliged to move only diagonally. I can do as I wish with my laptop, in a way that is distinct from you doing what you wish with my laptop. An officer in the service of the Ukrainian government is obliged to follow instructions from Zelenskyy in a way that they are not so obligated by any other Ukrainian. — Banno
Uses and acts are manifestations of our goals. What is our goal in using scribbles and sounds? What is our goal in acting in ways that produce scribbles and sounds? If your goal is not to refer to some state-of-affairs then what are you saying?The presumption here will be that we do things with words. Words are not just names used to passively se tout how things are. We make statements, we ask questions, we give commands - much more than just saying something, our utterances are acts.
Consider:
"I now pronounce you husband and wife"
"I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth"
"I give and bequeath my watch to my brother"
"I bet you a fiver it rains tomorrow"
These are not mere descriptions. They are what Austin called performative utterances. Each makes something the case; that the couple are married, the ship named, the ownership of the watch passed on and the bet offered, if not accepted.
Notice that such utterances are not either true or false; if they misfire, it is in some other way than by truth value. — Banno
Promises are an example of a type of performative utterance that makes something the case. — Banno
But on first glance I think you are right that suppositions are declarations. — Banno
I think you are right that suppositions are declarations. — Banno
where F is the force and p the propositional content.F(p)
Not sure what you mean by "inward". — Banno
An inward declaration would make no sense in the same way a private rule would make no sense. A declaration is a public event, creates a public rule. — Isaac
I think it was decided to keep it seperate, rather than suggest that two acts were being performed at once. It's clearer. — Banno
Declarations happen in the world: a naming assigns a name to a being or object. Suppositions on the other hand, happen purely in the mind, of the listener and speaker. — hypericin
I see the distinction, but it's less clear with something like "the ratio of the diameter of a circle to it's circumference is Π" This doesn't apply to any object in the external world (unless you want to posit the existence of perfect circles), but it declares rather than supposes. — Isaac
Minds, listeners and speakers are not in the world?Every speech act is public, that goes without saying (leaving aside self talk). The distinction is, what is the domain of this rule? Where does it happen? Declarations happen in the world: a naming assigns a name to a being or object. Suppositions on the other hand, happen purely in the mind, of the listener and speaker. — hypericin
Just as every command can be preceded by, "I want...". A command refers to the demanding party's wants. The person being commanded can refuse the command, so the actual command couldnt have been used to make someone do something. Its use only displays what the person making the command wants.I think there's a sense in which they're assertions too. All stories might be preceded by the unspoken "in the story...", and so it becomes a declaration about a fictitious story. It is false that 'in the Lord of the Rings' Aragorn takes the ring to Mordor. — Isaac
Just as every command can be preceded by, "I want...". A command refers to the demanding party's wants. The person being commanded can refuse the command, so the actual command couldnt have been used to make someone do something. Its use only displays what the person making the command wants. — Harry Hindu
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.