This is true. But it does not mean that X is Y, which is where the claim becomes substantive. And it undermines your original point, which was that what it means e.g. to be a horse depends on how people use the word, which is false. — The Great Whatever
And if that "X is Y" is true is that X is Y then that X is Y is dependent on how we use the word "X". — Michael
And if that "horses are equine animals" is true is that horses are equine animals — Michael
But to be a horse just is to be an equine animal. — The Great Whatever
Why ought it be baffling to me? — Michael
The main point is that the truth of the claims expressed by the sentences being used on the right-hand side of both shemas only depend on what is the case in the world (i.e. the extra-linguistic world) regarding horses and equine animals, and doesn't depend on any kind of linguistic stipulation embodied in the truth theory which the T-shema is a theorem of. — Pierre-Normand
Is what you say here true? — Michael
If so, what does its truth have to do with horses being equine animals? Nothing? — Michael
So I can, in principle, accept the truth of your claim "to be a horse just is to be an equine animal" but not accept that to be a horse just is to be an equine animal, or accept that to be a horse just is to be an equine animal but not accept the truth of your claim "to be a horse just us to be an equine animal"?
Doesn't this strike you as nonsensical? — Michael
Surely if I accept the truth of your claim "to be a horse just is to be an equine animal" then ipso facto I accept that to be a horse just is to be an equine animal, and vice versa. — Michael
Doesn't this then entail that the below is correct?
"Horses are rabbits" is true iff horses are equine animals — Michael
In the language as it is now used, it reports that horses are equine animals, which is true. This in no way means, as you think, that horses being equine animals is dependent upon the language I speak existing at all. They are, and always were, equine animals regardless. — The Great Whatever
So what makes it the case that to be a bachelor just is to be an unmarried man? The fact that we use the terms "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to refer to the same sort of thing. — Michael
No, bachelors are unmarried men regardless of what words we used. — The Great Whatever
I'm saying that to be a bachelor is to be an unmarried man iff we use the words "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to talk about the same thing. — Michael
I'm not saying that those people who are bachelors are unmarried men iff we use the words "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to talk about the same thing.
You seem to think I'm saying the latter. — Michael
The sentence "to be X is to be Y" is equivalent to the sentence "'X' means 'Y'". — Michael
Suppose that 'horse' meant 'rabbit.' Then to be a horse would not be to be a rabbit (which is absurd). — The Great Whatever
To be a horse would still be to be a certain ind of animal, the same kind as before.
The fact that we use the terms "bachelor" and "unmarried man" to refer to the same sort of thing. — Michael
If we change the meaning of "horse" then what it means to be a horse (in the updated language) is different to what it meant to be a horse (in the archaic language). — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.