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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005