File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_2003/bhaskar.0312, message 217


Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2003 19:24:06 +0000
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere7.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false,even  ifHegelian Marxists say so


Thanks for this, but I wasn't addressing an issue in the philosophy of 
mathematics, merely pointing out that if you accept that a proposition 
is false in the TD, referentially detaching it hardly makes it 
non-false.

Mervyn

In message <000201c3c300$87aeebf0$e4034e51-AT-yourai3cazt00s>, jamie morgan 
<jamie-AT-morganj58.fsnet.co.uk> writes
>The current post-Quinean position in philosophy of mathematics tends to hold
>that 2+2=5 is neither true or false since numbers are real only as
>internally related sets of structures of meaning (this is the resposnse to
>the problem of positing the reality of number which is nonextended in space
>and time and cannot be itself interacted with only the objects it is further
>used to represent and explore - problems of physics etc) - see various
>debates in Philosophical quarterly through the 90s - the problem of the
>apparent arbitrariness of number combined with its apparent fruitfulness and
>centrality in scientific explanation is set out in Kant, but also explored
>by Russell and Kripke.
>
>jamie
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox-AT-ilstu.edu>
>To: <bhaskar-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU>
>Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2003 11:23 PM
>Subject: Re: BHA: Structures are not things that are true or false,even
>ifHegelian Marxists say so
>
>
>
>
>Mervyn Hartwig wrote:
>>
>> Dear Günter
>>
>> >Propositions are false as propositions (transitive), not as aspects of
>> >(intransitive) reality.
>>
>> So 2+2=5 is false in the transitive dimension, but just real when I
>> referentially detach it, thereby assigning it to the intransitive
>> dimension. Well, well.
>>
>2+2=5 obviously is reak. If it is affirmed as a proposition about
>arithmetic it is (a) really affirmed (hence it has as much reality as
>2+2=4) but (b) false as a aproposition. Actually, "false as a
>proposition" is redundant, because that is what we _mean_ by "false," at
>least as long as we want anyone outside a long thread on a philosophy
>maillist to know what we are talking about.
>
>Carrol
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
>
>
>
>     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005