A statement implies a speaker

@Deckard,

How about the relationship being a triangle? Speaker to proposition to world to speak to proposition to world, etc. A triangular dialectic. Self - World -Description of Self and World. But this division fall under description. Perhaps there is neither self nor world but only proposition.

@Deckard,

Deckard;112753 wrote:

Here are two relations:

1) The relation between proposition and the world

2) The relation between the proposition and what the speaker actually thinks/understand/knows/believes about that proposition.

Are they commensurable? If so how?

The second is a proper subset of the first, of course. Since what the speaker believes about the world is a fact in the world.

@Deckard,

One could argue that the speaker-world-proposition distinction is created by discourse in the first place.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112799 wrote:

One could argue that the speaker-world-proposition distinction is created by discourse in the first place.

I suppose that one could argue anything in a free country. The question would be whether such an argument would be sound.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112844 wrote:

I suppose that one could argue anything in a free country. The question would be whether such an argument would be sound.

The question might also be what makes an argument sound sound to some and not to others.

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112897 wrote:

The question might also be what makes an argument sound sound to some and not to others.

That's easy. Some people believe it is sound, and the others don't believe it is sound. The reason for that is that people can make mistakes. Or they may not know what the criteria of soundness are. After all, what makes a chess position checkmate to some, and not to others? Same answer.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112924 wrote:

After all, what makes a chess position checkmate to some, and not to others? Same answer.

That's a good lead. Let's say that no body remembers the real rules of chess, and that philosophy is this chaotic unstable sort of chess. Where rules are written between moves, where the move is rewriting the rules. Philosophy is the king priest of Science. Ideal Reason is Vulcan Majesty. Christ in bifocals. Philosophy is meta-science, the Law of laws. (King of kings and queen of the sciences?) Philosophy as a god made of text, as the super-text? A negative Law?

@Reconstructo,

Reconstructo;112957 wrote:

That's a good lead. Let's say that no body remembers the real rules of chess, and that philosophy is this chaotic unstable sort of chess. Where rules are written between moves, where the move is rewriting the rules.

There are recognized chess variants. Some include multiple boards rearrangements of the pieces more than 2 players. There are also older version of the game that are not quite the modern chess game. Some movies are relatively new. For example castling in its modern form was established in 1620 in France and 20 years later in England.

So the game changes though not very fast and there are variants though they are much less popular.

A chess game as plastic and chaotic as you are suggesting Reconstructo is possible but I don't think many people would want to play it.

@Deckard,

Deckard;112977 wrote:

A chess game as plastic and chaotic as you are suggesting Reconstructo is possible but I don't think many people would want to play it.

I agree. When Nietzsche said the world in itself was Becoming, did he mean this Ugly Chess Game? He says we project what I would call white lies of being upon this becoming. We impose a finite structure on the awful infinite. Is this what is meant by" the fear of god is the beginning of wisdom?"

I don't want to play Nightmare Chess either, but perhaps this is the Hell that Christ as Artist descends into for raw material? Is this the well? The cave of the dragon? This ruleless meta-game beneath the games we enjoy and live by?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;112794 wrote:

The second is a proper subset of the first, of course. Since what the speaker believes about the world is a fact in the world.

Some of the many variants of the logic game that I want to learn include epistemic logic and doxastic logic. Granted these may be nearly identical with standard propositional logic as kennethamy points out. In the final analysis it may be the same old game with fancier chess pieces. Nevertheless, this variant or subfield was taken seriously enough by logic wizards like Kripke and Carnap. I'm going to take a break from this thread until I know more about epistemic and doxastic logic and if and when I feel I know enough to do so, I may provide some kind of synopsis.

Philosophy Forum

A statement implies a speaker

Quick Links

My Account

able2know