Propositions aren't sentence-dependent, no. It can be true that p even if there's no sentence acting as a vehicle to express p.

It doesn't matter. Then you can just define the relation with an argument for context, and have truth of a sentence relative to a context. This isn't important to the point.

It really doesn't matter. If a sentence has a conventional semantic content that can be modeled as a proposition, the sentence can express the proposition in that any utterance of it will express that proposition. You're just defining the relation arbitrarily narrowly.

Whether any particular proposition a sentence might express is true isn't mind-dependent unless that proposition is specifically about or involves minds essentially.

But whether a certain sentence expresses a proposition, and so whether a certain sentence is true, is probably mind-dependent, in the sense that whether something counts as a sentence, and what a sentence expresses, is dependent on a linguistic practices in turn dependent on minds in some way. To deny this would be to say that for any arrangement of things in the world that logically or conceivably could be interpreted, according to some imaginary linguistic system, in a certain way, in fact already is: and so you'd be forced to say that basically everything is a sentence, and everything expresses every conceivable proposition, always (since there will always be a logically conceivable linguistic convention that could be so arranged). But this is false, so the assumption underlying it has to be; and so whether a sentence is true is mind-dependent, because what it means is mind-dependent, even though the truth it expresses isn't.

Yeah, I have one of their albums. I listen to a lot of heavy rhythmic instrumental rock generally, but the 'djent' wave sort of passed me by, and I think they're sort of in that camp. It's good. More hungry for keys recently.

This is seriously beautiful:

You suggested that the Avenue Q stuff was left projection. — csalisbury

I was introduced to it in high school by a neighbor of mine, who was pretty much the gold standard of what you might call a bourgeois southern Californian – liberal, college educated, gay, and so on. It seemed to serve, to me, a function of 'whew, I'm glad they said it so we can all admit we feel this way,' but my reaction on hearing it was not that.

I-can't-stand-people-who-make-jokes-based-on-arbitrary-cultural-differences stance. (I'm assuming you're not trying to do a thing of the guy in that video wasn't white while libs at college specifically hone in on poor whites?) — csalisbury

It's not that I can't stand it, it's just not something that resonates with me or that I have a desire to join in with. Like I said, I think it's unfortunate, but it's of a different quality from educated racism (which I think this particular neighbor was not a party to – he was not young enough).

I agree that a lot of people have casually racist attitudes. I think people who are educated in certain ways have racist attitudes that are more than casual, i.e. more than reactions to personal experiences and casual bigotry based on superficial differences or stereotypes. They have systematic, ideologized racist ideas that are deeply ingrained in them and that they are actively seeking to spread.

Casual racists who grow up around it, and don't have it inflicted upon them as a matter of curriculum, are not dangerous in the way that educated racists are. I personally don't like the casually racist ideas, and don't participate in them. But whereas I think those are uncouth or unproductive, or even mean or sometimes a pathway to violence (and I think these attitudes also come from being educated in a certain way), I think the educated attitudes are seriously dangerous. Casual racism comes from contact with other ethnicities, noticing differences, having ingrained biologically-driven preferences, and having bad experiences with an out-group. All of that is unfortunate, but it's part of life. The educated racism is not, it's pathological and insane. I'm just really, really tired of these sorts of people.

But yeah, the Avenue Q song doesn't resonate with me. I mean, look at this:

https://youtu.be/vqn9rXu1TCM?t=3m1s

The joke is literally that South African languages have clicks in them (the name, so far as I am aware, is made up, and is a parody of Xhosa). How is that funny? I mean, it doesn't offend me, but there does seem to be this weird sort of racism to it in that the very notion that a language might make use of a sound that yours doesn't is enough material for a standup routine. Likewise, how is it 'funny' that Mandarin speakers sound like Mandarin speakers?

Not really. I just think that there are tendencies on the left that favor perpetual hysteria, and perpetual hysteria isn't sustainable in trying to make any point, because you have no modulation of your tone. It's just egregious outrage at absolutely everything, forever, which leaves everything you say without scope or interest. I think that some of the responses to Trump, especially after he won the election, might genuinely qualify as mass hysteria and delusion, of the kind that historians and psychologists need to document for progeny.

That and I think it has to do with misdirecting one's own fears and prejudices at other people. If all you think about is race, it's impossible to think that everyone else doesn't also. I guess, also, there might be something to be said that it is the left that has been inflaming racist sentiments in recent years, for more than Trump ever has. I don't know, I'm so tired of these people.

Just as a matter of personal phenomenology, the insult 'racist' has become so oversaturated that my first response is always not to take it seriously, because I have no idea what it means. Being alive is, on many respectable accounts, racist for certain sorts of people.

I think maybe people on the left project their own racism onto everybody else. It reminds me of that Avenue Q song, Everyone's a Little Bit Racist. On hearing it, I got the feeling I was supposed to laugh along and think, 'yeah, I've totally thought those things!' but I hadn't, so the impression was more like, no, that's just you that's racist, retard.

It's worth recalling the lack of arguments against the existence of a soul. The Cartesian notion of a mental substance is not at this point explanatorily satisfactory, and though I disagree that any serious empirical damage has ever been done to the thesis of interactionist dualism, it doesn't seem to be a satisfying or illuminating account.

But the classical notion of the soul as eudaimon or genius or chi, a personal guardian spirit that is simultaneously one's own character and a guardian spirit watching over one and determining one's fate, has a lot to be said for it. It is both outside of one's self, out of one's own control, and a part of oneself. Some notion of character being fate is very old in many world traditions. That is always the guiding thread of 'who I am,' personal destiny, which is never either outside of one's control or in it. This notion is one that is prior to crude numerical identity, and may be impossible to understand without it – the continuation of 'who one is,' 'the one' who will be tortured, or what have you. Only after grasping that is the notion of a future as a distinct point in time possible.

I reckon I can find a more sophisticated assessment than that, and which contradicts yours - even if it accepts that Harrison Ford doesn't act well in the movie. Would that one be objective or not? If so, then yours would be wrong. — Sapientia

Uh, yeah, that's kind of how it works. Although I don't think you will find any, since all evidence points to the movie being bad.

I don't buy that the subjective plays no part in these assessments. It can influence them. Calling yours objective is suspicious, to say the least. — Sapientia

Influence them? What does that matter? What matters is whether they're right. Subjectivity can't influence that.

And all I really get from you is that you don't see it that way, and have a different lifestyle, and you disapprove, and think that others who don't share your way of seeing things or your lifestyle are inferior, and that they should adopt your personal way of seeing things and your lifestyle.

I think that that's narrowminded and arrogant. — Sapientia

Well, I don't think those things, so that's again your projection.

And besides, suppose it's my 'personal opinion' that it's not narrow-minded and arrogant. In fact, maybe my 'personal opinion' is that thinking that which lifestyles are appropriate is determined by arbitrary individual opinion is 'narrow-minded and arrogant.' Now what are you going to do? It's just my 'personal opinion.' For you to contradict it or suggest I hold another would be 'narrow-minded and arrogant,' right?

And also, why would a lifestyle that involves watching Disney movies and not knowing how to cook have merit? Why not defend something interesting or worthwhile instead?

No, but I don't see what that has to do with what we're discussing. You implied that because good, interesting, etc. have connotations, that they therefore must be subjective. But since heavy has connotations, too, this would seem to commit you to heavy being subjective, which you've previously denied. So your argument has gone nowhere so far.

But I didn't say there were.

(properties which you'd have to specify) — Terrapin Station

Not true. I did specify them for specific case upon request. Why are you lying?

and that it has no other connotation, such as a positive or negative connotation, or a normative connotation or anything like that? — Terrapin Station

But connotations are not what is at issue. When applied to people, 'heavy' has a negative connotation. That doesn't mean calling someone heavy is about your personal tastes. It's about whether someone is heavy. Likewise for calling a movie good or interesting. It's not about your personal tastes, but about whether the movie is good or interesting.

OK, so why is good or interesting not just a name for these objective properties?

What makes the scale reading a higher number a heavy rock rather than a light one?

Before I go there, are you just going to keep asking 'why' questions to every answer I provide?

If so, this will not get what you want, to differentiate between the rock and movie cases, since I can just ask you what makes a rock heavy, and then no matter what you respond with, ask why x means that the rock is heavy, rather than light. See how that works.

The stunted delivery of his lines, the lethargic and unnatural speech, the impression that he's going to keel over at any minute while trying to impersonate a tough, go-get-'em space traveler, etc.

In case you're retarded, not acting is a way of saying not acting well. Make sense?

Because you can objectively observe Harrison Ford not acting well. His acting prowess is in the film.

Sure.



As you can see, Harrison Ford can't act. Movies with actors that can't act are bad. So the movie is bad. This is objectively observable as much as a rock's weight.

But you can show objective evidence that something is interesting, or good. A movie is something you can watch that has qualities, and based on these qualities it can be clear that it's trash.

So what is the difference between those sentences? Why is one a matter of taste and the other not, and how do you know?

So is a sentence like 'the rock is heavy' also an expression of personal taste?

Are there any sentences that do not express matters of personal taste? If not, which ones don't?

If they are being honest, yes – but then, in virtue of uttering the first sentence, they also feel the rock is heavy (or else they would be dishonest in saying so). This is a feature of all sentences.

Why? You haven't made the case that it is about what they feel to begin with. Your hypothesis is not the null hypothesis: you yet have to prove your initial assumption it's not that I have to then prove something on top of this.

'The rock is heavy.'

'The movie is excellent.'

These sentences are about, respectively, a rock and a movie. Neither makes any reference to a person's feelings. So why would you think that's what they're about?

So why is 'The movie was excellent' about personal tastes, rather than about the movie? The sentence is clearly about the movie. There seems to be no motivation you've provided for thinking it's about personal taste.

No, if they were telling us how they felt about them, they would say something like, 'I feel that this movie is...' or 'I find this movie...' If you say that a movie is excellent, you're saying something about the movie, i.e. that it's excellent, not something about how you feel about it. You might thereby convey that you feel that it's excellent, if you're being sincere, but that's not what the sentence is about.

What's the motivation for thinking they have to do with personal taste in the first place?

OK, I agree people say those things. How does that show that the truth of those claims consists in personal taste?

Like what?

What evidence?

Why would it be about personal taste?

Why go this far to defend Marvel films though? It was just an example, and why are they worth defending anyway?

I guess we can just decide not to hold ourselves to any standards and just live like plebs and animals, but that sounds lame, I'll choose a better worldview.

In all fairness, you assumed I was talking about you, which seems to me to be projective behavior.

I don't really understand what I'm supposed to get out of talking to you, Sapientia. Not to be rude or anything, but I just don't see what purpose this line of conversation is serving, or what point you're trying to make, so I'm going to desist. Taking snippets from people's posts and saying you disagree or that they outrage or confuse you, or calling them boring, just doesn't seem to be an interesting way to discuss anything, and I don't get why you do it.

Then perhaps I'm simply not like most human beings. I don't ever feel the need to use mumbo-jumbo terms like "spiritual enrichment". Do I require it? Do I yearn for it? I'm not even sure what it is, but if it's anything like church, then I already have something of an opinion on it, and I trust my opinion more than I trust yours. — Sapientia

Okay? I don't know why you're telling me all this.

Well, these terms that you're using are a bit vague, so I'm not quite sure what you even mean. What's a purely material existence? I could live without Christianity, and I don't think that it would be such a great loss. — Sapientia

A material existence would involve the means for physical survival and maybe reproduction, lack of pain, and possibly entertainment and the experience of pleasure and comfort and interest. Most people find an existence consisting of only these things unsatisfactory, because they don't provide any context or method for living life self-consciously, with a narrative history and vision of what it means to live in a certain way as part of a certain people.

I think the dominant opinion among educated people in the West is now that some sort of nihilism is self-evident, and that meaning is something that must be projected onto the universe by individual effort. But this seems to be due to a lack of experience with meaning and culture, which people then take to be the normal state of things.

And you thinking they're crappy doesn't make them not good, either. — Sapientia

I never said it did. Their being crappy makes them crappy, obviously. I say it because it's true; it's not true because I say it.