You're not providing a meaningful account of what a proposition/truth-bearer is. Is it a physical entity? Is it a mental concept? Is it a Platonic Idea? Is it some magical substance that is able to "attach" to concrete utterances? — Michael
It's usually thought of as an abstract object, which just means a proposition is "beyond" any particular person. I can be wrong about the status of a proposition, so it's not just a resident of my noggin. Mathematical entities are also abstract, so you can compare propositions to things like numbers.
Propositions are the things people assert or agree to. If you adopt an ontology that rules them out, you're headed for some type of behaviorism. — Tate
I'm not ruling out propositions, I'm questioning what it means for a proposition to exist. Do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? If they do then it strikes me as Platonic realism. Is that what you're arguing for? — Michael
They exist as abstract objects. The set of all non-penguins exists whether anybody ever refers to it or not. I guess it's part of a logical landscape. They don't exist in time, in other words. They don't age. — Tate
I personally wouldn't argue for something Platonic. I would say they're residents of human thought. They're part of the way we interact with our environment. — Tate
They exist as abstract objects. The set of all non-penguins exists whether anybody ever refers to it or not. I guess it's part of a logical landscape. They don't exist in time, in other words. They don't age.
— Tate
This sounds like Platonic realism. — Michael
But then if they're "residents of human thought" then presumably they don't exist when not thought? — Michael
Then as a reductio ad absurdum it would appear that my argument proves Platonic realism (of truth-bearers). — Michael
Alternatively, perhaps that it deduces Platonic realism (of truth-bearers) is a reductio ad absurdum to prove anti-realism? — Michael
What does it mean for a proposition to exist "beyond" any particular person? Where, in relation to a person, does a proposition exist?It's usually thought of as an abstract object, which just means a proposition is "beyond" any particular person. I can be wrong about the status of a proposition, so it's not just a resident of my noggin. Mathematical entities are also abstract, so you can compare propositions to things like numbers. — Tate
Propositions are a causal relation just like everything else in the universe. Any particular thing does not exist independent of the causes that led to its existence.I'm not ruling out propositions, I'm questioning what it means for a proposition to exist. Do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? If they do then it strikes me as Platonic realism. Is that what you're arguing for? — Michael
Propositions are a causal relation just like everything else in the universe. Any particular thing does not exist independent of the causes that led to its existence. — Harry Hindu
Did propositions exist prior to humans existing? If the answer is no, then propositions depend on our existence. If the answer is yes, then I'd have to pause and ask exactly what we are proposing when we use the term, "proposition".OK, but do propositions exist when nothing is said? Do propositions exist when nothing is thought? Does the existence of a proposition depend in some sense on us? — Michael
Did propositions exist prior to humans existing? If the answer is no, then propositions depend on our existence. — Harry Hindu
I take issue with 2 and 4. — Harry Hindu
2 and 3 seem to be saying the same thing. — Harry Hindu
A true or false propsition is not synonymous with an existing or non-existing proposition. A false proposition is just as real as a true one. — Harry Hindu
That's nice, but every rule of inference is either uttered or scribbled. Where do these rules of inference exist?2 is an application of existential introduction. 4 is modus tollens. They're valid rules of inference. — Michael
If you can't tell me where rules of inference are, then how can you say that they even exist? Are the scribbles you made in your posts the rules of inference, or do the scribbles refer to rules of inference that are not just more scribbles? If the latter then where do the rules of inference exist relative to your scribbles?I don't know. Regardless, unless you want to reject the accepted rules of logic, you have to accept that my argument is valid (and as you accepted the premise, that my argument is sound). — Michael
Propositions are the things people assert or agree to. If you adopt an ontology that rules them out, you're headed for some type of behaviorism.
Philosophers don't usually feel required to give an ontology to them. — Tate
Great. What are their assessments of the ontology of propositions? — Tate
As Janus puts it...
Commonality of experience shows that the gestalts or meaningful wholes do not arise arbitrarily, not merely on account of the individual perceiver, taken in isolation. So the possibilities are that either real existents, including the objects perceived, the environmental conditions and the constitutions of the perceives all work together to determine the forms of perceptions. or else there is a universal or collective mind which determines the perceptions and their commonality.
— Janus
I accept that all of this is possible, I'm not trying to deny it, but for the second option we're having to invoke a whole load of speculated realms and mechanisms, just to avoid there being intrinsic properties and I can't see why. — Isaac
what a proposition/truth-bearer is. Is it a physical entity? Is it a mental concept? Is it a Platonic Idea? Is it some magical substance that is able to "attach" to concrete utterances? — Michael
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.