@J, in your musings you might consider Davidson's "On Saying That", in which he sets out an argument that would result in "Pat thinks the Oak is shedding leaves" as "The Oak is shedding leaves" and "Pat said that" were that indicated the previous quoted statement.

https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS180/davidson_on_saying_that.pdf

Am I right that all four of these sentences are propositions in good standing, according to Frege? — J

I don't think so. Firstly Frege presented two logics, which are somewhat different. Secondly he was not concerned with sentences as such, so much as with truths about the world; that is, his emphasis is very different to that of modern logic.

The fact that A is from no particular point of view, whereas B - D are, doesn't matter, correct? — J

I think otherwise. The judgement stroke "⊢" turns a proposition into a judgement. "The oak is shedding it's leaves" would be bound together as a whole by the horizontal stroke:

—The oak is shedding it's leaves

And become a judgement with the addition of the vertical stroke

⊢The oak is shedding it's leaves

For Frege the operator "⊢" transforms expressions into judgements. This is quite different to recent usage.

So I'd suggest that Frege might parse (A) as —φ. He could not have differentiated (C) and (D), not having Popper's language, but I suggest that he would parse both as ⊢φ. Whether "See" is a judgement or not is moot, so (B) is undecidable.

This is simply how I read the SEP article on Frege's Begriffsschrift

Nuh, that's good, I wrote a post on much the same thing before my last, and then dropped it becasue it needed more work.

Is the tree dropping leaves? Is that a thought? I think the tree is dropping leaves against I think "Is the tree dropping leaves?". Should it be that I think "The tree is dropping leaves".

Seems to me again that 's OP is dependent on the ascendency of assertions. That looks unjustified to my eye.

I didn't realize you were frolicking. — creativesoul

Always.


Didn’t follow your reply though.

Cheers.

So was he right? I think not. Nor, I suspect, are the ideas he expresses a commonplace.

http://www.thatmarcusfamily.org/philosophy/Course_Websites/Readings/Frege%20-%20The%20Thought%20a%20Logical%20Inquiry.pdf

Are you assuming that all thoughts could be sensibly prefixed with "I think"? — creativesoul

Wouldn't an example of a thought that cannot be appended to "I think..." be a thought that could not be thought?

The play here is on the lack of a clear idea of what a thought is.

That there are no thoughts that could not be prefixed by 'I think...' doesn't have any profound implications, does it?

we don’t see it as it is. — Wayfarer

:roll: The notion of an "as it is" is a nonsense. @Darkneos is confuse enough as it is. You are not helping.

Back to the news. 40 more Bushmasters, to be armed with "long range" missiles.

Perth is probably my favourite. But Canberra is not too bad.

:wink: But you do have the best coffee.

Although I hate to admit it, Melbourne city is winning in liveability over Sydney, and has done for a decade or so. Sydney is comparatively dirty, crowded and impersonal. But it does have the Harbour, whereas Melbourne only has that septic creek.

Recall this? Philosopher Alain de Botton says Brisbane offers 'chaotic ugliness'

Most Australians I know drink imported beers like Asahi or Corona. — Tom Storm

You're in Melbourne, then.

Coopers comes up a bit too. — Tom Storm

Especially if you drink too much.

And this:

The Pints vs Schooners Debate

Western Australia: 95% Pints, 3% Schooners
South Australia: 83% Pints, 10% Schooners
Tasmania: 67% Pints, 32% Schooners
Victoria: 50% Pints, 43% Schooners
New South Wales: 46% Pints, 43% Schooners
Queensland: 44% Pints, 51% Schooners
ACT: 42% Pints, 55% Schooners
Northern Territory: 27% Pints, 65% Schooners

Yes, the voting systems here (and in most other places) are far more proportional. Again, that seems to be a part of the bifurcation. Greens here get about 15% of the vote.

Bud Light is not a beer.

The Banjo and the Bard.
Certain elements wanted Patterson taught in schools, but not so much Lawson. Can't have kids leaning about revolution:

Once I cried: ‘Oh, God Almighty! if Thy might doth still endure,
Now show me in a vision for the wrongs of Earth a cure.’
And, lo! with shops all shuttered I beheld a city’s street,
And in the warning distance heard the tramp of many feet,
Coming near, coming near,
To a drum’s dull distant beat,
And soon I saw the army that was marching down the street.

Then, like a swollen river that has broken bank and wall,
The human flood came pouring with the red flags over all,
And kindled eyes all blazing bright with revolution’s heat,
And flashing swords reflecting rigid faces in the street.
Pouring on, pouring on,
To a drum’s loud threatening beat,
And the war-hymns and the cheering of the people in the street.

And so it must be while the world goes rolling round its course,
The warning pen shall write in vain, the warning voice grow hoarse,
But not until a city feels Red Revolution’s feet
Shall its sad people miss awhile the terrors of the street—
The dreadful everlasting strife
For scarcely clothes and meat
In that pent track of living death—the city’s cruel street. — Faces in the street

Like the US, third parties haven't had much success. — Gnomon

Actually they do. The Coalition - the conservatives - have 30 Senators, while Labor has 25. Labor is reliant on eleven Greens or 6 independents to maintain supply and confidence.

This serves us by mitigating against the bifurcation found in US (and UK) politics. The trend at present is for the Liberal Party to move to the right, leaving room for an increase in the number of genuinely liberal independents, and Labor is forced to compromise with the greens while attempting to maintain a differentiation form them.

In the forthcoming election, the Senate will in many ways be more interesting to watch than the Reps.

Lawson and Patterson are historical relics of a bygone day. — Tom Storm

Lawson vs. Patterson was a part of the culture wars in the eighties. Being over fifty I can recite a few Patterson poems by heart, but only pieces from Lawson, this despite being on Lawson's side.

,

I know I would sound like an alcoholic, but the first Australian thing that comes to my mind is Foster's beer, not AC/DC. — javi2541997

Neither was that popular in Australia; along with Neighbours, these were more exported jokes: "What's the worst thing we can get the those silly pommy bastards to pay for?"

Certainly no one here drinks Fosters. 'Orid stuff.

I don't think anyone here drinks Fosters. — Tom Storm

I see you made the same point.

What is thought cannot be isolated from the act of thinking it; it cannot be understood as the attachment of a force to a content. — Rödl

He seems to think that the second sentence follows from the first. It's not obvious how.

A thought can be understood as a force and a content. That is demonstrably so.

And what is thought may be isolated from the act of thinking it. Quentin said that Pat thought the Oak was shedding, but it was actually the Elm next to it that was dropping leaves. But if the thought cannot be isolated from the act of thinking, then in thinking that Pat thought the Oak was shedding Quentin would be thinking that the Oak was shedding. But here Quentin thinks the elm is shedding, not the oak.

It might be supposed that one can object that what Quentin thought was not that the oak was shedding, but that Pat thought the oak was shedding. But if we cannot isolate the thought from the act of thinking it, then in thinking that pat thought the oak was shading, Quentin thought the oak was shedding.

Torrid prose. The simple truth behind it is that we can entertain a proposition without thereby accepting, believing, or assenting to it.

Also left open is what is meant by "Fregean logic". I'll go over my own view one more time. Frege might write:

Here, in the Begriffsschrift, "⊢" is an explicit judgement; what follows is known, and the scope of the "⊢" is the whole argument. It would be written now as ⊢∀A∀B(A→(B→A)). But since Frege, the "⊢" has taken on a somewhat different use, as meaning roughly that the formula in question is derivable. Being derivable is not the very same as being known. "⊢" is not commonly read in the Fregean sense of "I know this to be true".

But more worrying for Rödl is that much of logic does not make use of "⊢", but instead uses "⊨" and hence modelling and satisfaction rather that truth.

The danger here for Rödl is that in critiquing Frege he may be critiquing an approach that has been outmoded since Tarski. Satisfaction, not truth, and not assertion, are used in more recent logics.

When you ask if the Oak is shedding its leaves, are you thinking that the oak is shedding it's leaves?

If so, why ask the question?

Both Parliamentary systems with ceremonial presidents - we call our "president" the Governor General. We have one representative for each division, you seem to have multiple reps.

what is the AEC sounding out staff on their availability for? — javi2541997

, yep.

So, that the AEC are checking availability for April indicates that they have some expectation to be running the election. The date for Australian federal elections is decided by the PM telling the Governor General his intent. Unlike the US, the rules are the same for the whole country, and run by the one organisation.

more's the pity that nuclear has been made subject to partisan politics. — Wayfarer

Also, yes. I agree. I also think if it were left to the market, investment would flow to green energy projects over nuclear. Indeed, perhaps the fastest way to take it of the table would be to open it up to the markets without government support.

I guess if Dutton looses, that will be the end of debate about it. — Wayfarer

I doubt it. They can easily spend twenty or thirty years passing it between states and federation.

Interesting perspective from Pyne, although I think it presumes that Dutton is playing a kind of three-dimensional chess strategy when I'm sure his attitude was a lot more simplistic than that. — Wayfarer

On a par with the dick-waving appeal of AUKUS? True, but then is it his idea or one from the back room?

It’s an important distinction. — Joshs

If you must.

There's an OP in the SMH admitting that Dutton's nuclear policy is a non-starter but that is irrelevant to it's purpose. By Christopher Pyne.

I doubt that Labor will be able to gain a majority. So it may well come down to a coalition. Albanese would like to distance himself from the Greens, so he may well be talking to the Teal independents. That would be a move towards the centre.

Unless the Liberal slide to the right reflects the sentiment of the moment. Then ideology will overrule rationality, again. Worst possibility would be an Tampa event.

At the risk of dragging this thread back on topic, I understand from my sources that the AEC is sounding out staff concerning their availability in April.

I'm betting on the 5th or the 12th.

?

So Australia is a continent? — Arcane Sandwich

You are obsessing over an irrelevance. Time to move on.

Some times it helps to move things around.

The notion that scientific laws and maths are contingent human artifacts rather than the product of some Platonic realm — Tom Storm

Artefacts are made from the stuff around us. It's not an either-or.

Paterson was a romantic. Australians live in the city. Always have. Lawson tells the real story.

The City Bushman now drives an oversized ute with a perversely small tray around the suburbs.

And the city seems to suit you, while you rave about the bush.

If you travel around Melbourne... — Tom Storm

You'll get better coffee.

up North — Tom Storm

Funny how our north is like their south. Proximity to the equator?

Old joke: If someone who speaks two languages is bilingual, and someone who speaks three languages is trilingual, what do you call someone who speaks just one language?

.

I thought the whole point of hinge positions , language games and forms of life was that the concept of truth was precisely irrelevant to them? — Joshs

Ask @Sam26.

You don't seem to have said anything of substance with which I would disagree, so long as you agree that hinge propositions are true.

...they just aren't epistemological truth values, — Sam26

Not a good wording. If they are true, they have epistemic standing. "Here is a hand" justifies "There are hands". Hinges have truth values.

Wish we would get some rain. Stay warm.

"never quite rightly" becasue they differ from mere assertions. You at least agree here, but phrase it oddly. You suggest that they do not have a truth value. I can't agree with that, since if they did not have a truth value then they could not be used as assumptions in an argument. One could not get from "Here is a hand" to "there are hands".

The difference is sometimes in the illocutionary force. So "Here is a hand" can be treated as a declarative rather than an assertion - as "This counts as a hand". And as such it can be true, and we can conclude that there are hands.

And treating "Here is a hand" as a declarative would indeed be a showing rather than a saying.

...deny the force/content distinction — J

It's pretty unclear what this would amount to.

The distinction is easy to display. "The grass is green" can be an assertion, a command or a question, depending on context. The name given to the distinction between these three utterances is illocutionary force. Three utterances can have the same propositional content and yet have different illocutionary forces.

Seems odd to deny this.

In the Frege thread some folk seemed to have a different sort of force in mind, going by the name "assertoric force", but it remained very unclear whether, and how, this was different from illocutionary force. It was as if folk were under the misapprehension that assertoric force was somehow prior to the other illocutionary forces, such that they were dependent on or derived from some sort of truth value.

But there seems no reason to give precedence to one of the illocutionary forces over the others, and good reason not to. In the end, force just classifies what we are doing with an utterance, and prioritising assertion appears to be mere chauvinism.

There is no way of stating p without stating p. — J

But one can question P without stating P. Kinda that point of asking a question.

Are all propositions first-person propositions? — J

No. That's why we have the distinction between first person and second person and third person.

What is the relationship of "p" and "I judge that [think/believe/propose etc.] p"? — J

"p" sets out a state of affairs, and "I judge that [think/believe/propose etc.] p"sets out an attitude towards that state of affairs. What's the issue?

Something here bothers you, but it remains unclear what. So I'm taking this thread as your articulating what it is you find troublesome. If you can see some error or lack of clarity in what I've said, it might help.

But it seems to me that Kimhi and Rödl are yet another instance of misleading phenomenological analysis.