Well, isn't that what correspondence theory says? And also a good reason to question correspondence theory? — Banno

Propositions are abstract objects. So is the world (as the set of all the stuff that happens). Are propositions in the set of all the stuff that happens?

I have no idea. I don't think so.

We're currently talking about truth as correspondence to fact/reality. To change the referent from correspondence to fact/reality to fact/reality(actuality) is a big problem. That's an entirely different conversation. — creativesoul

The two notions are related and the OP is explicitly about the "power of truth", which truth as the merely formal property of propositions on its own cannot have. For truth to be revealed in propositional form is for actuality to be revealed in propositional form; and that is the actual power of truth; I'm not interested in empty formal logic. Even in that context, though, actuality, truth as actuality, cannot be dispensed with since it is the formal requirement for soundness.

That's the way I see it anyway, unless you, or someone, can come up with some actual argument to convince me otherwise.

If there aren't two things, then how is the word "correspondence" being used? — frank

See for yourself

We all know what correspondence is, just that we all know what time is. — Janus

But we all know what true is, too; so why bother with correspondence?

We don't need to bother about it unless we want to try to analyze what makes propositions true and false, or explore the ways in which we are able to think about what it is to be true.

Sure, we don't need to think about it any more than we need to think about what time is in order to know how to deal with it; but if we do want to think about the conditions of truth, what viable alternative to correspondence or revelation (and no, I don't mean that in the Scriptural sense) have we been able to come up with?

Propositions did for philosophy what dark matter/energy does for physics.

...we all know what true is, too; so why bother with correspondence? — Banno

Do we all know what true is?

Being true requires correspondence. Being called true requires language. Correspondence does not. Being true does not. Either being true does not require truth or truth does not require language.

We do until we are asked to say what it is.

Good point. I know I do, but as for you...

Yes, you could have a true or false picture of things without language.

...you could have a true or false picture of things without language. — Janus

I used "requires" very deliberately. It means - if one cares to understand what I'm setting out here - that something is existentially dependent upon something else. The phrase "without language" is problematic to me for it cannot draw and maintain the distinction between things in terms of existential dependency.

To wit...

Something can be both existentially dependent upon language and without it. Thinking to oneself about what one wants to do tomorrow is something we do that is existentially dependent upon language, but because it is unspoken many say that that is done 'without' language.

So...

Substitute that phrase with "is not existentially dependent upon language" and not only is the problem dissolved, but we also adopt a framework that is capable of setting out existential dependency.

Do we all know what true is? — creativesoul

Good point. I know I do, but as for you... — Banno

Here's what I know...

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. Being called "true" does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. A statement's being true requires correspondence to fact/reality.

We make statements meaningful. Statements say something because of us and only because of us. Being meaningful is necessary but insufficient for truth. It's meaningful regardless. It's not true unless what it says is the case. That is, it's not true unless it corresponds to fact/reality.

:kiss:

Something else needs mentioned here. Tarski was a logician. He attempted to take account of(define) truth using logical notation. It cannot be done with such means. He did reduce our account/report of correspondence(of statements/propositions) to it's most basic elemental constituents.

A beautiful bare minimum explanation/criterion. Perhaps "rendition" is better.

I used "requires" very deliberately. It means - if one cares to understand what I'm setting out here - that something is existentially dependent upon something else. — creativesoul

I was responding to "Being true does not (require language)" and agreeing with that. As I said I think a human being without language or an animal could have a true or false picture of things. This would mean that they either see or do not see what is actual. One gazelle blithely drinks at the waterhole failing to see the well-camouflaged lion just ten metres from her, for example. Another gazelle notices the lion, and runs to safety. The former has a false picture of actuality in respect of the lion and the latter a true picture.

If they could speak the first might say "there is no danger here, I can safely drink" and the other might say, " there is danger, I'd better run".

:smile:

I was in the middle of attempting to offer a more charitable reading(one that was more amenable to my own view, since you're claiming agreement). You've done a much better job than I was doing, but that account/report of the gazelle's mental ongoings still doesn't quite work for me.

I know this will undoubtedly come off as my being nit-picky but...

The hypothetical gazelle speech act you've offered is one that requires fairly complex language use. The gazelles have none. So, I cannot grant the part about "if they could speak" as even a possibility. They do not have what it takes(as best we can tell). They do, however, have the capability to draw mental correlations between different directly perceptible things(as best we can tell anyway). I do not think that either gazelle acts deliberately as a result of thinking about their own physiological sensory perception.

More to my liking would be an account in which the content of gazelle mental ongoings consisted entirely of correlations drawn between directly perceptible things. The gazelle believed the lion was in the bush. The gazelle believed it was about to drink from the waterhole. The other gazelle did not believe the lion was in the bush. Rather, it had drawn no correlations including the lion at all. It had no belief about the lion. So, I would not agree to saying that it's picture(belief) was false. That would require believing the lion was not in the bush. Follow me?

So, I would not agree to saying that it's picture(belief) was false. — creativesoul

Gazelles are constantly wary of danger. I would say that the gazelle that sees no danger where there is danger has a false picture.

I acknowledge that my imagining what they might say is an anthropomorphic projection. But in order to posit a link or commonality between perceptions that are not linguistically mediated and perceptions which are linguistically mediated, I think the tendency, the need even, to anthropomorphize is inevitable; we cannot but think in our own terms. It's similar to the necessity of talking in terms of purpose in biology. We are always trying to frame things in terms that we can understand, and that activity is inherently anthropomorphic. We just need to remain mindful of what we are doing.

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement Flooble. Being called "true" does not make a statement Flooble. A statement's being true requires being flooble. — creativesoul

But what is Flooble?

Perfect. P's are floobie. Changing the terms in an argument/explanation is only acceptable if the truth conditions are maintained. You've changed the entire meaning, and thus the truth conditions alongside. You'll have to explain what you find relevant in that reply.

SO you say there is a difference between something's being flooble and it's corresponding to reality...

Good for you. I don't think being flooble is any less clear than corresponding to reality.

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. Being called "true" does not make a statement correspond to fact/reality. A statement's being true requires correspondence to fact/reality. — creativesoul

"True" is a word. The word does not make a statement Flooble. Being called "true" does not make a statement Flooble. A statement's being true requires being flooble. — Banno

...you say there is a difference between something's being flooble and it's corresponding to reality... — Banno

Where did you learn how to substitute?

Good for me?

C'mon Banno...

That's it. You have no better idea of correspondence to reality thn you have of flooble.

I disagree that anthropomorphism is inherently in our accounts of 'dumb' animals. We can acquire knowledge of all belief by looking at the right sorts of things when it comes to examining our own.

We can know that all of our examples are existentially dependent upon written language. We can know that all written language is existentially dependent predication. We can know that all predication is correlation. We can know that not all correlation is predication.

That's a good start.

Gazelles are constantly wary of danger. I would say that the gazelle that sees no danger where there is danger has a false picture. — Janus

Seeing danger is not the same thing as seeing a lion. Danger is not a directly perceptible thing.

We all know what correspondence is, just that we all know what time is. — Janus


But we all know what true is, too; so why bother with correspondence? — Banno

Sums up the whole thread.

I acknowledge that my imagining what they might say is an anthropomorphic projection. — Janus

Yeah, I feel ya. We are simply abbreviating “the totality of conditions adverse to survival” and conceive “danger” by it. Non-rational animalia do neither of those, but they do share sensibility with humans, such that the formal concept “danger” in us, and the natural predicate “instinct” in them, carry exactly the same weight, as sufficient causality for self-preservation.

By the same token, it is absurd to consider that a non-rational animal can “believe” it is either in danger or out of it. It can no more than sense or not sense the presence of “danger” by the only means available to it, i.e., perception. It follows that the “danger” sensed by them isn’t true or false, but rather, present or not present, insofar as some perception triggers the instinctive criterion in which “a condition adverse to survival” immediately exists, or it does not, and can say nothing whatsoever about the truth of it at all, that isn’t a post hoc fallacy by those that call themselves rational animals.

The sensing of danger by instinct, belongs to the gazelle; the truth about the sensing of danger by reason, is ours alone.
——————

I think such the tendency, the need even, to anthropomorphize is inevitable; we cannot but think in our own terms. (...) We just need to remain mindful of what we are doing. — Janus

Perfect.

The sensing of danger by instinct, belongs to the gazelle; the truth about the sensing of danger by reason, is ours alone. — Mww

I agree with what I think you are saying there: the gazelle senses danger just as we do, and responds instinctively rather than rationally. My point about the relation of the perception of the gazelle to truth and falsity was concerned with what you called sensing present or absent danger.

If the gazelle senses present danger when there is present danger or does not sense present danger when there is none, then we can say it has a true picture, and when it does not sense present danger or senses present danger when there is none then it has a false picture.

So, animals can be right or wrong, in their own way in terms of what they sense or fail to sense, about the actual situation. Which is not at all to suggest that animals think in terms of right and wrong or true and false.

D’accord. As long as things are qualified by “we can say...”. Or at least carry that tacit implication.

:cool:

You have no better idea of correspondence to reality thn you have of flooble. — Banno

That's not true.