[hist-analytic] Kripke on the A priori and A posteriori
Baynesr at comcast.net
Baynesr at comcast.net
Sat Nov 14 09:22:32 EST 2009
I'm still immersed in colors and Kripke, so I can offer only
a very modest response to your suggestion.
The relevant link to consider, if this is your take on
propositions, is that between worlds and propositions. One
widely considered view is that a proposition is a sort of
mapping from worlds to truth values. This is a good suggestion
as long as we're doing algebra. But how do we approach the
question: "What is the relation between an actual thought
and the proposition which supplies the content of a thought?"
Propositions don't occur in time, but thoughts do. What, then,
is the relation of this algebraic device to the actual thoughts
of a given individual? It has become fashionable to reject
such questions a "merely" psychological, but this is not a
good answer. It is a bad way of dodging the real philosophy.
To be sure there is a role for abstract (timeless) entities
in semantics, but the place of semantics in understanding the
nature of the mind is, I think, more fundamental than semantics,
philosophically speaking. In a world without minds, there is
no language (beyond "System S" - that sort of thing); in a world
without language no propositions. Then there is a problem with
the relation of facts and propositions. Are we going to embrace
propositions but reject facts?! I find that a dubious proposal,
but it may not be part of your proposal. It is a popular view,
We'll get to analyticity and, therefore, the nature of necessity
and propositions. One big problem is going to be domonstratives.
But this is the first link between minds, contexts, and propositions
addressing the issues I would raise.
By the way, I just got software called "Coffee Cup." I'm finally
beginning to upgrade the hist-analytic website. So far this is the onl
software of its kind I've been able to understand with little effort.
When people bring in context after a hearty breakfast of what is more or
less set theory, I begin to wonder if maybe something has gone wrong.
A bunch of subscripts ala Montague is no substitute for an analysis of
----- Original Message -----
From: "Roger Bishop Jones" <rbj at rbjones.com>
To: hist-analytic at simplelists.com
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 5:11:20 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: Kripke on the A priori and A posteriori
On Wednesday 11 November 2009 16:00:52 Baynesr at comcast.net wrote:
> ... what do you take a proposition to be?
I use proposition to mean the meaning of a sentence in some language given
sufficient context to disambiguate the sentence.
It doesn't matter for my arguments exactly what a proposition is and I allow
that to be language specific, but it is essential for the concept of
analyticity as defined by carnap that propositions fully encompass all that is
determinate about the truth conditions of the sentence in the relevant
context. This includes the domain of the truth conditions, i.e. the relevant
notion of possible world (which also I allow to be language specific for
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hist-analytic