Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: olcott <polcott2@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Analytical truth redefined so that Quine can understand that
 bachelors are unmarried
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:35:39 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 125
Message-ID: <ut9u1c$9qc8$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ttednQpP38i-2sL9nZ2dnUU7-K3NnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <ut954l$4epn$1@dont-email.me> <M_ydnWHt9Pcm8WX4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:35:41 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="17ec9398ed80e19bde6326f5400a6c92";
	logging-data="321928"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18/0SUfwKgdJOEeiSy/O0Vv"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nmhxQEenqWbZClJywhSbA75yqFg=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <M_ydnWHt9Pcm8WX4nZ2dnZfqn_idnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 6124

On 3/18/2024 11:33 AM, Ross Finlayson wrote:
> On 03/18/2024 03:30 AM, Mikko wrote:
>> On 2021-03-27 14:54:31 +0000, olcott said:
>>
>>> Most people construe the term "absolute truth" as necessarily coming
>>> from the mind of God, thus atheists reject absolute truth. Philosophy
>>> leaves religion out of it and says that analytical truth can be
>>> verified on the basis of its meaning.
>>>
>>> Because Quine had such a hard time understanding that bachelors are
>>> unmarried in his "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" I have adapted the
>>> definition of analytical truth so that it can be more directly divided
>>> from other forms of truth:
>>
>> It is a sin to say anything untrue about other people.
>>
>>> (1) Expressions of language that are defined to be true and
>>
>> Truth is not a matter of definition.
>>
>>> (2) Expressions of language that have been derived on the basis of
>>> applying truth preserving operations.
>>
>> Only affirmative sentences and only if derived from true sentences.
>>
>> Note that the word "sentence" has different meanings in comp.thery
>> and sci.lang. In the former (and in sci.logic) it usually excludes
>> all but affirmative sentences.
>>
> 
> Nah, an idea of "absolute truth" can arrive from simply
> considering a theory where there's a language that only
> has truisms, a "Comenius language", 

In other words only semantic tautologies that are self-evidently true
are included.

In epistemology (theory of knowledge), a self-evident proposition is a
proposition that is known to be true by understanding its meaning
without proof... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence

> then it results that
> the Russell set is the same as the Liar sentence,
I don't know what you mean by: "the Russell set"

> then that's only a prototype of a first fallacy or
> contradiction, then that it provides both all the
> cases for forward inference and a case for deductive
> inference, at once, together.
> 
Things such as {cats are animals} are stipulated to be true thus
can be used as premises to deductive inference such that the
conclusion is defined to be a necessary consequence of its premises.
This eliminates things such as the principle of explosion.

> So, the "metaphysics", of such a thing, and "true theory"
> or "a theory of truth", has that it's purely a matter of
> reason, then insofar as that both deists and non-deists
> "we have a metaphysic, and, deism is super-scientific",
> to exclude deism from scientism, while still making it
> so that formally both deism and non-deism are irrelevant,
> in "a least metaphysics", in a sort of Hegelian approach
> and Aristotle would approve, as a Plato's ideal and for
> Kant only the sublime Ding-an-Sich, only that much greater
> and within itself, this way there can certainly be a theory,
> at all, "A Theory", then not so much that we can know it,
> but we can ascertain it and attain to it, and it is,
> and it's true.
> 
> 
> I sort of get into this in my podcasts under "Philosophical
> Foreground" and some 10,000's posts on sci.logic and so on.
> 
> https youtube /@rossfinlayson
> 
> 
> If this is an introduction to, "sci.lang", here the
> notion is of "a Comenius language", which is a universe
> of objects of the theory of language, all true, ...,

Yes this seems to be what I am meaning.

> then according to comprehension, one excluded, ...,
> "elementary primitives of ur-language",
> for a course of axiomless natural deduction.
> 

Alternatively every sentence could be construed as an axiom.
Or more simply that a set of necessary consequences are derived
from stipulated truths. The latter essentially taking on the
role of an axiom.

> 
> About the affirmative and negative, negatory, one idea
> to consider is that the language actually starts with
> all negatory, that just results a structure for affirmatory.
> 
> 
> When I study English grammar I consider Curme,
> and when I diagram its structure it's after Tesniere,
> according to the most published book as for a literary
> and deconstructive account for its technical content,
> or the logico-philosophical, it basically establishes
> a space from nothing then also introduces that in
> the beginning that there was a word, for the
> synthetic/analytic distinction, as a usual holistic
> monism, a usual holistic dual monism, and that
> technically there's a way to relate that to there
> being a teleology and ontology not either void the other.
> 
> That's the point of my most recent podcasts,
> re-connecting teleology and ontology, while
> the idea of "a Comenius language a universe of
> words", or statement, is about any old "A Theory",
> at all, with regards to "truth" and "true".
> 
> 
> Doesn't say what it is - just says that it is.
> 
> 

-- 
Copyright 2024 Olcott "Talent hits a target no one else can hit; Genius
hits a target no one else can see." Arthur Schopenhauer