James Devine wrote (quoting Webster's):
6. Logic: an expression in which the predicate affirms or denies something about the subject
The point is that this is a discussion about "Dialectics/Philosophy of Mathematics/Realism." The only one of those uses of the word "proposition" relevant to the topic is that specified in the above definition. It is also inconsistent to say that "propositions" cannot exist without states of mind but that "truth" can,
because, as pointed out, "In their usual sense, 'truth'
and 'falsity' are characteristics of *propositions*, and of nothing else."
Shane Mage
"When we read on a printed page the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems mystical, mystifying, even downright silly.
When we read on a computer screen the doctrine of Pythagoras that all things are made of numbers, it seems self-evidently true." (N. Weiner)
-original post-
... I didn't say that "truth" doesn't exist without minds. I said that "understandings of truth" (i.e., propositions) don't exist without minds, while of course propositions are often false....
Shane Mage writes: This doesn't make any sense to me. In their usual sense, "truth" and "falsity" are characteristics of *propositions*, and of nothing else. Nor do propositions require minds to exist (though they do require minds to come into existence). That this proposition is true can be easily understood by imagining that the universe, without changing in any other way, became completely mindless. The propositions given material form in this e-mail would by definition continue to exist, even though there would be no minds left to appreciate their truth. --------------------------------
To be repetitious, this response doesn't make sense to me. If there's no mind to appreciate it, how could a proposition on paper or in an electronic archive be anything but a bunch of ink on paper or a bunch of somewhat ordered electrons? Meaning is subjective.
BTW, I looked up the conventional -- i.e., dictionary -- definition of the word "proposition" in my handy-dandy WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY (2nd college edition) and saw:
n: 1. the act of proposing 2. a) something proposed; proposal; plan b) [Colloq.] an unethical or immoral proposal, specif. one of illicit sexual relations in return for some gain 3. [Colloq.] a proposed deal, as in business 4. [Colloq.] a person, problem, undertaking, etc. being or to be dealt with 5. [Archaic] a setting forth; offering. 6. Logic: an expression in which the predicate affirms or denies something about the subject 7. Math: a theorem that must be demonstrated or a problem that must be solved 8. Rhetoric: a subject to be discussed be discussed or a statement to be upheld. vt: to make a proposition, esp. an improper one. SYN: see PROPOSAL.
"propose" is defined as: vt. 1. to put forth for consideration of acceptance 2. to purpose, plan, or intend. 3. to present as a toast in drinking 4. to nominate (someone) for membership, office, etc. vi: 1. make a proposal, fomr or declare a purpose or design. 2, to offer marriage. SYN: See INTEND.
To my mind, these definitions by and large indicate that a "proposal" is a subjective thing. Further, it's part of a social, interpersonal, setting.
If someone wants to use a different definition, that's fine by me, but they should be conscious that they are going against the general conventional meaning, so that they should be very clear and open concerning their own definition.
Leftists need to learn how to talk to non-leftists, while academics need to learn how to those who are outside of their specialties. JD
