We're done now. --- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Well, you should have said truth can't exist > without > > minds. Truth is a property of propositions or > > sentences. Only sentences or propositions are true > or > > false. > > So you were arguing against what I should have said? > That's a pretty weak excuse for not reading what I > write with care. > > I mentioned "truth" only in response to you. But it > doesn't matter, since I disagree that the idea that > truth is only a property of propositions or > sentence. There is a reality independent of our > perceptions of it (I believe). "Truth" would involve > a correspondence between that reality and our > perceptions. That might be called "empirical truth," > which is just as relevant as "logical truth." Of > course, empirical truth would be a matter of > multiple degrees (i.e., quite complex) rather than a > simple yes/no variable. > > > _You_ define propositions as mental states. That > is a > > dumb view. > > Really? definitions can be "dumb"? Definitions are > not things that are handed down from Olympus by > Zeus, or ideal forms on the cave wall that we > glimpse only fleetingly, so that those who don't see > the true definitions are unfit to be > philosopher-kings or dumb. > > Definitions are usually _conventions_, created by > people, and often differ between groups, cultures, > and languages. (This is just as with the definition > of "planet". There are shades of gray and the > convention helps us draw the line.) One group often > thinks that the definitions used by another group > are "dumb." But that's just petty squabbling, > narrow-minded group-think, or gross elitism. > > When you initially misunderstood my reply to DD, I > was very clear that by "proposition" I was > referring to a mental state. > > Lawyers and philosophers win arguments by labeling > others' opinions as "dumb"? Is this common? > > > Since you are speaking frankly, I will too. > > No one thinks that propositions are mental states. > > what is this group of people to whom you refer? In > which group of people is it that "no one" thinks > "propositions" are mental states? Is this a majority > of US citizens? world residents? sentient beings? > > > That's silly. Propositions are the contents of > some > > mental states. ... > > that's your definition of what YOU and your > fellow-thinkers (whoever they are) mean by > "propositions." Just as with my definition, it's a > matter of convention. > > > Your insistence that realism about propositions or > > numbers is idealism is puzzling, but you are > entitled > > to stipulate whatever definitions you want for > terms... > > that's right. Definitions are conventional. > > By the way, I didn't say that realism about numbers > was idealism. (I haven't the slightest idea where > that came from.) As I noted at the start of this > thread, I see numbers as existing in reality. (Some > mathematical laws do, too.) > > JD > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
