This sentence is false.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166838 wrote:

What is an intentionally constructed fiction?

Look in a dictionary, ask your mother, whatever, but dont expect me to indulge you in these daft questions. Deal with the actual problems, instead of attempting to evade them with feigned incomprehension.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166841 wrote:

Look in a dictionary, ask your mother, whatever, but dont expect me to indulge you in these daft questions. Deal with the actual problems, instead of attempting to evade them with feigned incomprehension.

Again, please stick to the topic in this thread. If you want to argue about fictions then go back to that thread which you were arguing in or make a new thread.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166840 wrote:

Could you two stop derailing this thread?

I'm not derailing the thread, the question of whether or not truth is a property, is pertinent.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166843 wrote:

I'm not derailing the thread, the question of whether or not truth is a property, is pertinent.

The answer to the question may be pertinent but a 20 page discussion on the question, isn't. We shouldn't be trying to settle all philosophical problems in a single thread.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166840 wrote:

Could you two stop derailing this thread?

Is that what we are doing? I thought we were just taking a short excursus. Anyway, I thought it was pretty much agreed that the sentence, "this sentence is false" expresses no proposition for want of a referent of the noun phrase, "this sentence".

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166844 wrote:

The answer to the question may be pertinent but a 20 page discussion on the question, isn't. We shouldn't be trying to settle all philosophical problems in a single thread.

Okay. It seems to me that those who claim that: 1) existence is not a property, and 2) fictional objects do not exist, are committed to denying that truth is a property. I doubt that this solves the problem of the liar, or if it does, evades revenge paradoxes, but it's a line of thought which hasn't yet been explored on this thread, as far as I can tell.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166849 wrote:

Okay. It seems to me that those who claim that: 1) existence is not a property, and 2) fictional objects do not exist, are committed to denying that truth is a property. .

I don't quite get that. Could you fill that in a little?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166850 wrote:

I don't quite get that. Could you fill that in a little?

An assertion is true iff it expresses a proposition which exists as an abstract object.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166849 wrote:

Okay. It seems to me that those who claim that: 1) existence is not a property, and 2) fictional objects do not exist, are committed to denying that truth is a property. I doubt that this solves the problem of the liar, or if it does, evades revenge paradoxes, but it's a line of thought which hasn't yet been explored on this thread, as far as I can tell.

1. This sentence has five words.
2. The sentence above is true
3. This sentence is true.

I think once we admit that (1) and (2) are both in good standing (and true) then we have to look elsewhere for the source of the problem in (3). Like I said before, we know (1) is true by counting the words in (1). We know (2) is true by counting the words in (1). To know the truth-value of (3) we must already know the truth-value of (3). The problem is in turning a proposition's outward truth-seeking function, viciously inward.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166820 wrote:

Another ughaibu mystery. I hope that truth will be the daughter of time.

---------- Post added 05-21-2010 at 08:20 AM ----------

How does it follow that because the play, "Hamlet" cannot be identified with any one particular, and it cannot be identified with some set of particulars, although not any particular particular? It may be that you cannot be identified with the fact that you are a student because you might exist even if you were not a student, but that does not mean that you would exist if you had no particular characteristics.

Try again. I don't know what you mean.

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper;166854 wrote:

The problem is turning a propositions outward truth-seeking function, viciously inward.

I'm not convinced that there is a problem, even for realists. After all, realists dont get their knickers in a twist over pathologies in mathematics, such as division by zero, so why shouldn't self referential paradoxes similarly be accepted as pathological exceptions?

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166858 wrote:

I'm not convinced that there is a problem, even for realists. After all, realists dont get their knickers in a twist over pathologies in mathematics, such as division by zero, so why shouldn't self referential paradoxes similarly be accepted as pathological exceptions?

Right, that can be done with a hierarchy. Then truth-values can't depend on themselves, end of story. There's no need to throw out the "this sentence" baby with the paradoxical bath water.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166853 wrote:

An assertion is true iff it expresses a proposition which exists as an abstract object.

Sorry, need more filling in. Need a connection with the notion of fictional object, I think. (When you say that propositions exist as abstract objects are you saying anything other than that propositions are abstract objects?).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166865 wrote:

Sorry, need more filling in. Need a connection with the notion of fictional object, I think. (When you say that propositions exist as abstract objects are you saying anything other than that propositions are abstract objects?).

It's pretty simple; if abstract objects exist, and if no fictional objects exist, then truth is an existence claim. Therefore, if existence isn't a property, then truth isn't a property.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166869 wrote:

It's pretty simple; if abstract objects exist, and if no fictional objects exist, then truth is an existence claim. Therefore, if existence isn't a property, then truth isn't a property.

Wow. My logical capacities simply fail. How does "truth is an existence claim" (whatever that means) follow from the previous two sentences?
And how does, if existence isn't a property, then truth isn't a property, follow from, what? (Is it from, "if no fictional objects exist, then truth is an existence claim"?, or is it just from, "truth is an existence claim" (whatever that means)? You are joking, ughaibu-please tell me you are joking.

@Emil,

[QUOTE=Emil;166772]Fast is a pluralist proposition theorist (= propositions are the basic truth carriers but some sentences are also true/false). [/QUOTE]Thanks. I was wondering what I was.

I will add that never is it the case that a sentence is true or false if it does not express a proposition. The only reason I would ever call a sentence true or false is if the sentence expressed a proposition--all of which [propositions, that is] are true or false.

Why would I ever call a sentence true or false at all? It feels right. It doesn't seem that I'm committing a category error when I do so.

I want to know if it's techncially the case that sentences are true or false even though they are only derivately true--dependent on whether the propositions expressed by them are true or false. I think the answer is yes.

Here's my position:

Sentences that express true propositions are true sentences, sentences that express false propositions are false sentences, and sentences that don't express propositions at all are neither true sentences nor false sentences.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;166872 wrote:

Wow. My logical capacities simply fail. How does "truth is an existence claim" (whatever that means) follow from the previous two sentences?
And how does, if existence isn't a property, then truth isn't a property, follow from, what? (Is it from, "if no fictional objects exist, then truth is an existence claim"?, or is it just from, "truth is an existence claim" (whatever that means)? You are joking, ughaibu-please tell me you are joking.

Seriously, you dont understand any of it? Just imagine that it was written by some famous philosopher, then you'll get it straight away. But do try to remember that there are two posts, my first explanation and its follow up, and try to work with them in concert.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;166878 wrote:

Seriously, you dont understand any of it? Just imagine that it was written by some famous philosopher, then you'll get it straight away. But do try to remember that there are two posts, my first explanation and its follow up, and try to work with them in concert.

Even if it were written by Kant himself I would still be flummoxed. Can you lay out the argument so it can be examined properly? If there is a concert I am missing the music.

@Gnostic,

Emil wrote:

If you are talking about a proposition expressed by a sentence, you shouldn't write "this sentence". You should write what you mean to avoid confusion. Shorthands can be very confusing in philosophy. I often avoid them for clarity.

I very much agree.

That said, do you believe there is a proposition expressed by the sentence, "This sentence is false"? (understand the shorthand)

fast wrote:

Sentences that express true propositions are true sentences, sentences that express false propositions are false sentences, and sentences that don't express propositions at all are neither true sentences nor false sentences.

But you even note the propositions expressed by the sentences are what are true and false. Why are the sentences true or false? I don't get it.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;167004 wrote:

But you even note the propositions expressed by the sentences are what are true and false. Why are the sentences true or false? I don't get it.

Does it really matter?

This sentence expresses a false proposition.

Philosophy Forum

This sentence is false.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know