Analytic truth is defined as the set of expressions of language that are proven completely true entirely on the basis of the semantic meanings that make them true.... Any expression of language that can only be proven true with sense data from the sense organs: "A cat is in my living room right now" are excluded. Also expressions that have unknown truth values such as the Goldbach conjecture. — PL Olcott
So you have a collection of propositions that are trivially true (facts being excluded). In what sense is this an achievement and what does it achieve? — tim wood
Any further reading on that? As is, it seems there is some elaboration missing for this argument to pass. — Lionino
I am separating analytic truthmakers from synthetic .........Some of these expressions such as "cats are animals" are stipulated to be true (AKA axioms). Other expressions are proven to be true on the basis of deductions from these axioms..............Any expression of language that can only be proven true with sense data from the sense organs: "A cat is in my living room right now" are excluded. — PL Olcott
The general problem is that as a word only has meaning in relation to other words, and as any such relation comes down to a personal judgement on behalf of the reader, whether an expression is analytic or not depends on personal judgements rather than absolute truths. — RussellA
Or perhaps I'm not understanding what you want BOAK to do -- what its purpose is. — J
My advice is to drop the terminology entirely. Some words and concepts become so overloaded by debate, nitpicks, and lack of consensus that they're impossible to make head roads with and become worthless in discussion. You can convey your ideas that you want in an argument without using the terminology, so that's what I would do. — Philosophim
Since we can know that {Cats} <are> {Animals} on the basis of the meaning of these words then that makes is analytical according to the common and simple meaning of the term {analytic}. Think of this as explaining these things to a computer that has no sense data from sense organs.Perhaps this is why the analytic status of a statement like "Cats are animals" is controversial. (On my view, it isn't analytic at all.) — J
The controversy centers on whether part of the meaning of the word “cat” is indeed that a cat is an animal, — J
I am only taking the idea of possible words as a verbal model of the actual world.Suppose “water” is a rigid designator in all possible worlds — J
We don’t seem to need the concept of “animal” to refer to cats, or recognize them, or talk about them. — J
I am merely trying to define the term {analytic truthmaker} on the basis of the conventional meaning of those two terms. I can perfectly specify exactly what is and what is not {analytic} for all those people that have made up their minds that they don't believe in the analytic / synthetic distinction. — PL Olcott
"Unicorns are horses with horns on their head" — Philosophim
Unicorns are fictional animals that are {horses} with {horns}. — PL Olcott
Sure. Replace all I said with actual encounters in the world with people's drawings. Is there a degree of bending we can do with a fictional creature and still keep its identity? When is a unicorn not a unicorn, especially if its a made up creature? — Philosophim
The controversy centers on whether part of the meaning of the word “cat” is indeed that a cat is an animal,
— J
That seem to be like saying how do we know that "12" represents the integer twelve and not a plate of brownies crushed on the floor? — PL Olcott
Well, no. The analogous question with "12" and the brownies would be, "How do we know that 'cat' represents those furry critters we like so much and not [insert wildly unlikely referent]?" We know this because we know how to use the word "cat", just as we know how to use "12". But in neither case is there some further, purportedly analytical fact about animals or integers. That, at any rate, would be how Kripke and others (including me, most of the time) would argue it. — J
The axioms of the verbal model of the actual world stipulates that unicorns are fictional. — PL Olcott
I understand that. But what is the true definition of a fictional unicorn? — Philosophim
Although the verbal model of the actual world already exists it may take millions of labor years to write this all down. — PL Olcott
Then it sounds like we don't have a true definition of a fictional unicorn without a lot of work. In which case, is it analytic or synthetic? — Philosophim
↪PL Olcott I take little comfort in the notion that truth is either that which we agree to be true or that which is arguably true. It strikes me very much as another garbage in/garbage out situation. — Arne
We simply have the true definition of unicorn that already exists in the verbal model of the actual world. — PL Olcott
My purpose in this post is to unequivocally divide analytic from synthetic even if this requires defining analytic(olcott) and synthetic(olcott). — PL Olcott
I get that. The point I'm making is you haven't unequivocally done so. Look into the history of philosophy about the terms. Its centuries of bickering back and forth with no agreement. My former advice still stands. Let the words die. Indicate the concepts you want in an argument without using the words. — Philosophim
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.