I had a read an ignored that, since I couldn't make sense of "sense" there - it's truth-functional Boolean algebra all the way down.Not true in the same sense that any of the left side utterances are though. — creativesoul
An object o satisfies a predicate f if and only if ((f="is english" and o is English) or (f="is french" and o is french)
We have
For any sentence p, p is true if and only if ϕ
and given designation and satisfaction, we can take any sentence p in the object language and develop a sentence in the metalanguage that both designates the same things and is satisfied in the same conditions. — Banno
For every possible statement "S" in an object language, an S may be found in a metalanguage. — RussellA
"Jean est anglais" is true IFF John is English
Bowdlerising the argument, suppose we call "Snow is white", Fred.
Then we can write
Fred is true IFF snow is white
And perform a universal generalisation to get
U(x) Fred is true IFF x
...which is not what we want. — Banno
he problem with your approach is that logic is the means for justification. — Metaphysician Undercover
This sentence is false
Yes, I understand that using logic as a justification is a problem for you. — Banno
It's not my approach. It's formal logic over the last hundred and fifty years. — Banno
A few posts back you confused = with ≡. — Banno
Sorry, you must be talking about someone else. — Metaphysician Undercover
If "p" is true IFF p, and "p" is true IFF q, then p and q are the very same thing. I agree that this is very trivial, but it says absolutely nothing useful about the relation between meaning and truth. That is because you've exclude meaning from truth, by reducing truth to a statement of identity, saying that "q" and "p" must signify the very same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
If "p" is true IFF p, and "p" is true IFF q, then p and q are the very same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover
↪Metaphysician Undercover
If "p" is true IFF p, and "p" is true IFF q, then p and q are the very same thing.
— Metaphysician Undercover
So you can't even see where this is wrong. — Banno
This shows us the meaning of “bachelor”. — Michael
Tarski seems to be the theory in which folk are most interested — Banno
This is how Tarski avoids the problem to which @Michael drew attention — Banno
I perceive the word "snow" and designate it "schnee", such that "schnee" mean "snow". I perceive the word "white" and designate it "weiss", such that "weiss" means "white". — RussellA
p≡q is by definition (p⊃q)&(q⊃p)
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.