Really interesting stuff. I’m going to come back and say more when I’m at my laptop. You include several sentences that are not statements or claims. They’re questions or commands. Neither interrogatives nor imperatives are statements or claims. I also think you underestimate the way many of our claims are about us as well as about the work because we’re parts of the world. All that said, I agree with the main claim that relativism is implausible.
Exactly so how can falsity be a value? It runs into paradoxes like Russell’s because Frege tried to keep his logic platonist by objectifying truth and false but everyone else just went formalist. Godel showed the formalist approach doesn't work but he didn't fix the logic so it's just left in a limited state due to Turing.
I take truth to be that which corresponds to reality. A proposition is true insofar as it states the way something actually is and it is false if that state does not actually obtain. I don’t see away around this notion. Our basic use of language assumes the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction.
How do you have truth correspond to reality? For propositions I don't see how fundamentally grammatical relations state things the way they are. We certainly don't use these logical connections in physics or any hard science besides electrical engineering but electrical engineering doesn't have to use those as gates. I don't take natural language to be that much of a justification for them. In terms of grammatical numbers we have singular and plural as a numerical dualistic feature but that doesn't correspond to true and false and lots of languages have more and less grammatical numbers.
Edit: Also what does falsity correspond with because if it corresponds with nothing then that means it corresponds with not anything as not a pizza is not a cat etc but with the double negations you can literally reify that not a pizza to be not a cat, negate it again and then you have a whole new term. It ends up forcing relativity. If it corresponds explicitly with not whatever the first term then you are reifying nothingness.
Very good take on objective truth. More elaborate and academic than what I wrote a few years back. It was aimed at an audience that wants cliff notes.
Do you have recommendations for a logic program or book list?
Hi! Check out the first article at this link for a list of some good logic texts. https://stgb.substack.com/p/logic-resources
Really interesting stuff. I’m going to come back and say more when I’m at my laptop. You include several sentences that are not statements or claims. They’re questions or commands. Neither interrogatives nor imperatives are statements or claims. I also think you underestimate the way many of our claims are about us as well as about the work because we’re parts of the world. All that said, I agree with the main claim that relativism is implausible.
If you say nothing is cool, is that cool? Everything is either cool or not cool.
That's a validity trap and petitio principii because you're assuming truth exists to say it must.
Technically nothing has no being and therefore nothing can be predicated to it…coolness or otherwise. 🤔
Exactly so how can falsity be a value? It runs into paradoxes like Russell’s because Frege tried to keep his logic platonist by objectifying truth and false but everyone else just went formalist. Godel showed the formalist approach doesn't work but he didn't fix the logic so it's just left in a limited state due to Turing.
I take truth to be that which corresponds to reality. A proposition is true insofar as it states the way something actually is and it is false if that state does not actually obtain. I don’t see away around this notion. Our basic use of language assumes the laws of identity, excluded middle, and non-contradiction.
How do you have truth correspond to reality? For propositions I don't see how fundamentally grammatical relations state things the way they are. We certainly don't use these logical connections in physics or any hard science besides electrical engineering but electrical engineering doesn't have to use those as gates. I don't take natural language to be that much of a justification for them. In terms of grammatical numbers we have singular and plural as a numerical dualistic feature but that doesn't correspond to true and false and lots of languages have more and less grammatical numbers.
Edit: Also what does falsity correspond with because if it corresponds with nothing then that means it corresponds with not anything as not a pizza is not a cat etc but with the double negations you can literally reify that not a pizza to be not a cat, negate it again and then you have a whole new term. It ends up forcing relativity. If it corresponds explicitly with not whatever the first term then you are reifying nothingness.