What is the ontological status of words and their meanings? — Matias

Meaning is subjective for example. It only occurs in persons' heads.

which is your goal is to goad people into wasting time — boethius

That's not at all the case. You have really poor reading comprehension, as you've demonstrated over and over again.

That's not at all the case. You have really poor reading comprehension, as you've demonstrated over and over again. — Terrapin Station

Well, if my premise is correct, that:

which is your goal is to goad people into wasting time and you will work backwards to whatever statements and beliefs are necessary for that (which you have stated is your goal), then it follows you've just selected the belief that you believe will maximize your goading potential. — boethius

Then it follows that your claim that I have poor reading comprehension you've selected because it maximizes your goading potential.

Again, I have no problem accepting you genuinely believe this.

I also have no problem believing you genuinely believe your method of reading comprehension that involves literally "not reading" is superior to mine that does involve reading:

I never read that. — Terrapin Station

I only read the above by the way. — Terrapin Station

Is surely a way to comprehend what someone has written (in your mind).

Objectivity is an adopted disposition useful for purposes of assessment. It is not our natural state of being. You cannot be more on the inside than we are. And when we mistakenly think objectivity can be a constant state of being, we mistakenly think we are on the outside looking in. As a result, we are on the inside mistakenly believing we are on the outside looking in and that is a formula for maximum cognitive dissonance.

writes: "Meaning is subjective for example. It only occurs in persons' heads."

Not true.

If your sentence was true, Humpty Dumpty would be right ("When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.") But that is obviously not how it works, otherwise communication would break down...

If your sentence was true, you could access a meaning of an unknown word by introspection (but again that is not how it works: you have to ask other people or look it up in a dictionary, therefore it is NOT only in your head. The very existence of dictionaries shows that meanings of words are not subjective

Seen from the perspective of a subject (you or me), the meaning of "dog" is a real as the meaning of 2+2=4: we have to learn (!) it and neither you nor me can change it. The meaning of "dog" does not depend on the opinion of a subject (unless you call the totality of all speakers of English a "subject", which would be rather mystical...)

Subjective entities depend for their existence and for their characteristics on a subject. If they depend on many subjects, they are social or inter-subjective entities.

(See also John Searle. "The construction of social reality" - - who distinguishes "brute facts" (objects) from "institutional facts" (what I would call *intersubjective entities*)

If anyone else has something to say then cool, otherwise I guess I can continue believing it’s a sound argument. — AJJ

There's no real need for anyone else to say anything in addition to Terrapin Station's refutation in the first few replies back on page one. You should try to be more reasonable instead of standing by a weak and easily refuted argument.

Stephen R.L. Clark’s God, Religion and Reality
— AJJ

I will mention that I googled this book and looked at the Amazon preview, and that I think it looks a good book. — Wayfarer

You give credence to phonies espousing pseudoscience. If it looks like a good book to you, then that's reason to be wary.

According to Terrapin “fact” means the same thing as “is the case”, which means the same thing as “state of affairs”, which means “fact”. But he never actually said what these terms refer to outside themselves.

I would say that they refer to something that is true, and we ought to believe true things. What do you say they refer to?

According to Terrapin “fact” means the same thing as “is the case”, which means the same thing as “state of affairs”, which means “fact”. But he never actually said what these terms refer to outside themselves. — AJJ

There shouldn't be any need to do so. The problem here lies with you and your unreasonable request. The meaning of those terms, accompanied by a number of examples, is sufficient to obtain an understanding of what facts are. Feigning ignorance is not a valid defence.

I would say that they refer to something that is true, and we ought to believe true things. What do you say they refer to? — AJJ

That's an unconventional definition followed by an irrelevant opinion. Conventionally, it is statements which are true, and facts which are the case. Facts aren't statements. They are truthmakers, they're not themselves true.

That you say that we ought to believe true things is of no logical relevance. I haven't read all eight pages of discussion, but I'll hazard a guess that this has been said to you multiple times, but you've just decided to stand your ground.

So “facts” are “states of affairs”, which “are the case”, which are “truthmakers”. What do these terms refer to, if not to things that are true?

My view is that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to things that are capital T True.

Your view seems to be that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to something that is neither true nor false (so how do they ever correspond?)

It seems to me I’m stating the obvious here.

First, we need to not conflate definitions and meaning. Or, at least we need to not conflate text or sound strings with meaning. If a text string were the same thing as meaning, then there would never be any question as to what the meaning of anything is--you'd just point to the text string (also, I'm conveniently for your sake overlooking that there are no non-subjective associations of the type you'd need for the pointing reference). And no people would even be required for meaning. A piece of paper could "do meaning" on its own, since a piece of paper can contain a text string.

Re this: "you could access a meaning of an unknown word," you're already assuming an ontology in which there are meanings--whatever they're supposed to be, exactly, in your ontology--that are independent of what anyone is doing in their head, there for us to discover.

What one does instead is create meaning in one's head. When the meaning you create in your head doesn't make sense with the behavior you observe, then you make adjustments or additions to your subjective meaning in order to make sense of what you experience/observe. That's how communication works (when it does; often it doesn't; often we find others impenetrable, as happens often on this very site--that would be inexplicable if meaning were only text strings (and sound strings, gestures, etc.)).

your goal is to goad people into wasting time — boethius

I said something very specific/qualified about that. Hence you demonstrating poor reading comprehension.

Your view seems to be that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to something that is neither true nor false (so how do they ever correspond?)

It seems to me I’m stating the obvious here. — AJJ

I explained this to you already. How something corresponds is that there's a cat, for example, sitting on a mat, and we say, "The cat is on the mat." What we say corresponds, or more or less "matches" something. We're naming that matching of proposition-to-state-of-affairs "truth."

But you won’t say what a “state of affairs” actually is. I’m saying a state of affairs is part of the objective Truth, and is therefore something that is true.

But you won’t say what a “state of affairs” actually is. — AJJ

Basically states of affairs are relations of existent things, as well as properties of existent things. Things exist, they have properties, and they are situated in certain (dynamic) ways with respect to other existent things. Those are states of affairs.

If we're using the word "truth" to refer to the matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs, you're saying that states of affairs are part of the objective matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs?

My view is that statements and propositions are true when they correspond to things that are capital T True. — AJJ

Would you that statements and propositions are false when they correspond to things that are capital F False?

Basically states of affairs are relations of existent things. Things exist and they are situated in certain (dynamic) ways with respect to other existent things. Those are states of affairs. — Terrapin Station

Fine. I’m saying those relations are part of what is True.

If we're using the word "truth" to refer to the matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs, you're saying that states of affairs are part of the objective matching of propositions-to-states-of-affairs? — Terrapin Station

I don’t know why you’d refer to the matching as “true”. Referring to a statement or proposition as “true” when it corresponds to the Truth makes sense. What you’re saying seems incoherent to me.

Would you that statements and propositions are false when they correspond to things that are capital F False? — EricH

No - I’d say they’re false when they do not correspond to what is True.

Fine. I’m saying those relations are part of what is True. — AJJ

Okay, but that's not how we're using the word "true." We're using the word "true" to ONLY refer to propositions matching states of affairs.

Since those relations are NOT a proposition matching a state of affairs, they're not true.

It's very simple. To understand it you simply need to understand that we're ONLY using the word "true" to refer to propositions matching states of affairs.

Then, under this, to answer whether something is "true," you ask yourself, "Is that a proposition matching a state of affairs?" If the answer is "no," then it's not true.

I don’t know why you’d refer to the matching as “true”. — AJJ

The reasons stem from (a) an analysis of how people use "true," functionally (which can therefore be different than what they have in mind), and (b) a realization that there's a problem--the same problem that EricH just pointed to above--if we treat "true" as a property of states of affairs. That problem enters the picture when we try to account for "false." We either wind up having to posit some very wonky ontology, or we wind up having to say that "false" is a very different sort of thing (in the "natural kind" sense, basically--the sort of ontological thing that it is) than "true" is.

Okay, but that's not how we're using the word "true." We're using the word "true" to ONLY refer to propositions matching states of affairs. — Terrapin Station

No we’re not. I’m using the word “true” to refer to what is True. I’m using it in a way that actually makes sense.

The reasons stem from (a) an analysis of how people use "true," functionally (which can therefore be different than what they have in mind), and (b) a realization that there's a problem--the same problem that EricH just pointed to above--if we treat "true" as a property of states of affairs. That problem enters the picture when we try to account for "false." We either wind up having to posit some very wonky ontology, or we wind up having to say that "false" is a very different sort of thing (in the "natural kind" sense, basically--the sort of ontological thing that it is) than "true" is. — Terrapin Station

False is what is not True. I wouldn’t say Truth is a property of anything. Things that are true are part of the Truth, not the other way around.

"We" as in S, EricH, etc. and I, as well as analytic philosophers in general.

False is what is not True. — AJJ

And that "what" is what exactly ontologically? What sort of thing is it?

"We" as in S, EricH, etc. and I, as well as analytic philosophers in general. — Terrapin Station

OK.

And that "what" is what exactly ontologically? What sort of thing is it? — Terrapin Station

Whatever the state of affairs, statement or proposition is in question. “The cat is on the mat” is false if the cat is not on the mat.

Things that are true are part of the Truth, not the other way around. — AJJ

Can a thing be false and thus part of the capital F False?

Whatever the state of affairs, statement or proposition is in question. “The cat is on the mat” is false if the cat is not on the mat. — AJJ

So the thing that's false is a proposition. "The cat is on the mat" is a proposition, and that's what you're saying is false.

So why wouldn't what's true likewise be a proposition?

The statement is false because it doesn’t correspond to something that is true, i.e. part of the Truth. It would be true if the cat being on the mat was true, i.e part of the Truth.

Can a thing be false and thus part of the capital F False? — EricH

No - it can be false, which is to say it wouldn’t be part of the Truth.

Can a thing be false and thus part of the capital F False? — EricH

No - it just wouldn’t be part of the Truth. — AJJ

I'm a plain language person, so what I'll be saying next may not be as precise in philosophical terminology as others might put it.

The words true & false are opposites in semantic meaning, you cannot have one without the other.

However, if I'm following you, the word False (capital F) has no functional usage. This then implies that the word Truth (capital T) has no counterpart. As such, it seems like you could substitute the word "reality" or the phrase "state of affairs" for the word Truth (capital T).

AJJ - I know this is not an easy thing to comprehend - it took me a while to wrap my head around what Terrapin & S are saying.

I understand them fine. To them the word “true” refers to when a statement or proposition matches a state of affairs. However, the state of affairs to them is neither true nor false. I’m saying that the state of affairs is part of the objective Truth, which is why a statement can be said to be true when it corresponds to It.

Substitute the word “reality” for “Truth” if you like. In that case something that is false would be so because it is not part of “reality”. But “reality” there just refers to the objective Truth.

I said something very specific/qualified about that. Hence you demonstrating poor reading comprehension. — Terrapin Station

Well unless you can explain how literally "not reading" is useful for reading comprehension, I'm unable to take much stock in your opinion on reading comprehension.

Let's review more closely:

I'm not that interested in it, really, but I enjoy going back and forth with people who act like as much of an unjustifiably arrogant asshole as you do, especially when I can goad you into typing so much in response to short answers. — Terrapin Station

You clearly state that you engage in debate you are not interested in and you enjoy wasting people time by typing less but watching them type more.

If you do this, then presumably it's among your goals on this forum to achieve, and so likely to be the intention we see in some, if not all, of you posts.

Keeping with the theme of this thread, I have no problem accepting that you may genuinely believe one moment you are debating in good faith and the next moment just "enjoy going back and forth" with no concern to the content of your words. I have no problem accepting one moment you genuinely believe all of your posts have been made only in good faith, and the next moment genuinely believe all your posts have been only to goad people or to build up a position from which to goad.

The problem with simply announcing that you engage in bad faith debate -- for (I assume) the enjoyment of the moment of "striking a blow" since you could do nothing else with respect to argumentative substance you are unable to deal with -- is that once you claim you argue in bad faith, your subsequent claims that "oh, this time it's good faith" are hollow; it's entirely consistent to assume your subsequent protests "that sometimes I engage in debate in bad faith but this time not" is itself an argument in bad faith selected because you want to get back in the goading game when it was fun (before you had not only let the cat out of the bag but nailed it to a board).

But please, humor me, elaborate on the:

I said something very specific/qualified about that. — Terrapin Station

To show when you engage just "not that interested in it, really, but I enjoy going back and forth with people who act like as much of an unjustifiably arrogant asshole as you do" and so we can just ignore you, and under what conditions "no, no, I really am interested and I have only respect for the other people participating in the debate".

If you can provide no reasons for us to believe you even have such "specific/qualified" ideas in your mind that would make the difference, I think it's safe to assume that you don't debate in good faith all the time, and it's saver to assume never, and simply keep asking you to account of your own claim that "not that interested in it, really, but I enjoy going back and forth".

That being said, I have no issue with believing you truly believe what is convenient for you to believe one moment, and may completely change it the next if new beliefs become more convenient.

That if presented with a fact, such as the above is a reasonable response to a bad-faith actor in a debate, then, even if you see the fact is true, you will genuinely believe "I ought not to believe the fact" but rather "I ought to believe whatever facts will lead to more 'enjoyment of going back and forth' ". And so you win against AJJ! Believing facts are not objective, we need not all, or do, believe we ought to believe facts. You can take comfort in that.