Philosophical Question (on truth)
I'm looking for a term or phrase to describe the following concept.
1. There is a sky. This is a true statement wherever we go.
2. The sky is blue. This is just as true of a statement as the above when it is true.
What is the term that describes the concept behind the second statement? I do not think "conditional", "relative" or "situational" apply because those terms imply that the truth is relative to the observer instead of the conditions that make it true. When the sky is blue, it is "blue" to all observers.
The relevancy of the distinction? IMO, it relates to the characteristics of assumptions and accurate judgment. If I were to argue for a thing's necessity, for example, the implications of that necessity and thing would change between the first concept and the second.
Caution: What follows is a lot of formal philosophical mumbo jumbo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
davygamm
Isn't this about ontology AP ? You make a claim that something exists ( Sky) and then you make a claim about a property that it has (blueness).
Isn't the truth of both statements contingent ? On there being a Sky and that Sky being blue ? I don't know how you would show that with formal Logic ?
Sorry if that's not much help.
Caution: What follows is a lot of formal philosophical mumbo jumbo.
Thuis may be about ontology but it need not be. We can make claims without making any assertions about the actual existence of the subjects/objects of those claims. Another way of saying this is that "is " has multiple uses: it can be the "is" of existence or the "is" of predication (as well as the "is " of identity or equality).
Both are claims that are best expressed formally in quantified logic--the first is, as Danny point out(but applied to the wrong claim I believe), a particular claim of the form
EG: "There is some thing such that that thing is sky."
The second claim is a universal claim that embeds a conditional of this form:
UG: "For all things, if those things are sky then those things are blue."
(I'd show these as a formula but don't know how to import logical operators into this site's charactewr set)
However the rest of AP's discussion suggests that his second claim is more than just a sentence. He seems to to imply that we have an enthymeme the conclusion of which is "The sky is blue". If that is so, then my UG claim above is one premise, and a second premise is:
UI': This thing is sky.
The conclusion follows in the enthymeme by applying modus ponensas a rule of inference after instantiating the UG claim:
UI'': If this thing is sky, then this thing is blue.
Of course all of the above is just one way of translating all this natural language into a formalized structure. One could do it other ways too, like "there is something such that it is sky and it is blue." Pragmatic considerations about what one is doing and why enter here. Since I am not privy to the ones that bother AP at present, I won't belabor this any more. (A great sigh of relief is heard from the audience) :D
Wm, in the words of that great
philosopher and logician, President Bubba aka Bill Clinton, "It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is."
Cheers
JohnT
Phil 0000000000000000000001
Up side- You can believe whatever you want whenever you want about whatever you want:)
Down side-
So can everyone else:D
