Newsgroups: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!gatech!news.sprintlink.net!interactive.net!winternet.com!pinch.io.org!torfree!bn274
From: bn274@torfree.net (Alan MacDonald)
Subject: Re: The Search For Truth
Message-ID: <D8v7yC.I0A@torfree.net>
Followup-To: alt.christnet.philosophy,alt.philosophy.jarf,alt.philosophy.objectivism,alt.philosophy.zen,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,sci.philosophy.tech,talk.philosophy.humanism,talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Toronto FreeNet
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <mike.799620809@mik.uky.edu> <3p82a9$r0r@irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de>
Distribution: inet
Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 07:11:00 GMT
Lines: 41
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.philosophy:28208 sci.philosophy.meta:18217 sci.philosophy.tech:18101

Hans-Peter Stoerr (hs3@irz.inf.tu-dresden.de) wrote:

: Well, I think, the point is not that a statement is true or false to a certain
: degree, but it is true or false with respect to certain assumptions. And to
: think of this is definitely not a waste of time: If you don't mind the
: assumptions of a statement you will end up talking nonsense quite often.

: > Oh, and for the sake of argument, I claim that the next sentence I type in will
: > be undoubtedly true, and I challenge you to disprove it.
: > 
: > You have read this sentence.

: Well, I undoubtedly cannot disprove it in such a way, that you will believe
: me. :-)
: But even this has quite a lot of basic assumptions. The first is I am not blind,
: and this is not a computer, which read it aloud. ;-) But there are more. For
: instance that there is a well-defined meaning of this sentence. Does it make
: sense to speak of an "I"? Ok, ok, this leads to very difficult philosophic
: discussions, but you get the meaning.

The assumptions argument seems compelling with regard to "This sentence 
is false".  To call it a paradox is to assume that "This" refers to the 
sentence that it appears in.  Why would we assume that?  If you were to 
make such an assumption, you would no longer be evaluating the sentence 
simpliciter. So,  it seems that some assumed context to the sentence is 
unavoidable. This leads us to the most obvious and compelling context, 
the state of mind of the statement's author as to it's truth. If the 
author obviously intends "This statement is false" to refer to the 
statement he is uttering at that instant, he is not speaking truth or 
untruth but with disregard to truth or recklessness as to the truth (kind 
of like throwing a rock -not to hit or miss- but recklessly as to whether 
it hits you in the head) and this type of statement is not propositional 
in any sense: it is gibberish that sounds so much like a proposition that 
it sets off considerable philosophical speculation as to truth value.

AM
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"And tell him it's quite true that the best of the philosophers are of no 
use to their fellows; but that he should blame, not the philosophers, but 
those who fail to make use of them."  -Plato
