use layman's english please I do not understand one-third of the signifiers in your course of study
just nice and easy english
like a tepid saltbath
taking me down
down
deflationist theories of truth, the liar paradox, and semantic inconsistency
ok see I don't even have the wherewithal to know if that's all some kind of metajoke because it definitely looks like one
no that is really what my dissertation is about!
tsatansfingers: it's okay! i think i am not on the side of deflationism. inflate your truth all you want! (do not inflate your truth all you want that is silly)
bongi on
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
You're a Philosophy major right?
Are you doing your Masters?
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
use layman's english please I do not understand one-third of the signifiers in your course of study
just nice and easy english
like a tepid saltbath
taking me down
down
deflationist theories of truth, the liar paradox, and semantic inconsistency
ok see I don't even have the wherewithal to know if that's all some kind of metajoke because it definitely looks like one
no that is really what my dissertation is about!
oh!
see I thought you were making a joke because semantic inconsistency sort of applies here because I understand the strict denotative qualities of the words that you're using, and yet do not understand their meanings, thus illustrating a pretty significant gap in the signifier-signified equation
therefore semantic inconsistency, I think. and therefore a metajoke. I haven't really studied this stuff!
and I have no clue what ontological deflationism or the liar paradox are.
deflationism is a theory about truth that says that the content of a sentence to which the truth predicate has been applied is 'flat' with respect to the content of the sentence
the liar paradox shows that our common-sense notion of truth is logically inconsistent (i.e. the truth-conditions for our sentences are trivial)
the inconsistency approach is the view that this does not really matter because adequate communication only requires that speakers share the same semantic theory(/theories), not that they are logically non-trivial
it's difficult to explain with no background, it's all very esoteric
bongi on
0
Options
Viscount Islands[INSERT SoKo HERE]...it was the summer of my lifeRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
No, it's cool I totally get it.
(No, I don't.)
I know you probably hate this question, but what do you plan to 'do' with your degree?
Viscount Islands on
I want to do with you
What spring does with the cherry trees.
yes higher-level philosophy is awfully tricky to move into laterally, it seems (from the outside) as though you need to have a pretty firm grasp of the notions upon which each development is predicated
mostly just because of the damn vocabulary. Anytime I try to just jump into higher stuff I understand every word and zero sentences.
Deflationism escapes me, I think I'm on/about the level with you concerning the latter two
I think I have a better understanding of gen ed requirements and humanities degrees now that I'm here at college, and respect people who do pursue those degrees.
I'm just glad I only need to take 24 credit hours worth of gen eds
yes higher-level philosophy is awfully tricky to move into laterally, it seems (from the outside) as though you need to have a pretty firm grasp of the notions upon which each development is predicated
mostly just because of the damn vocabulary. Anytime I try to just jump into higher stuff I understand every word and zero sentences.
Deflationism escapes me, I think I'm on/about the level with you concerning the latter two
So an inflationist theory of truth is something like
x is true if and only if x corresponds to the facts in the world
or
x is true if and only if x is the rational end-point of enquiry
or something like that
deflationism says
'x' is true if and only if x
that is, the truth of a sentence (x) depends only upon the content of the sentence, not on a uniform definition like 'correspondence with facts in the world'
The extent of my philosophy knowledge comes from the D&D thread and I do not understand it at all.
Sticking to maths, where I have changed from BSc Maths to BSc Maths and its Applications! My 3rd year will now be a year in industry, which should be awesome.
yes higher-level philosophy is awfully tricky to move into laterally, it seems (from the outside) as though you need to have a pretty firm grasp of the notions upon which each development is predicated
mostly just because of the damn vocabulary. Anytime I try to just jump into higher stuff I understand every word and zero sentences.
Deflationism escapes me, I think I'm on/about the level with you concerning the latter two
So an inflationist theory of truth is something like
x is true if and only if x corresponds to the facts in the world
or
x is true if and only if x is the rational end-point of enquiry
or something like that
deflationism says
'x' is true if and only if x
that is, the truth of a sentence (x) depends only upon the content of the sentence, not on a uniform definition like 'correspondence with facts in the world'
what I'm hearing here is that you're primarily interested in the way language relates to the notion of an objective truth and, to a lesser extent, the way it bears upon subjective perception?
I am putting it into third-grade language for my own well-being I am sorry if this makes your interest set sound like baby interests
yes higher-level philosophy is awfully tricky to move into laterally, it seems (from the outside) as though you need to have a pretty firm grasp of the notions upon which each development is predicated
mostly just because of the damn vocabulary. Anytime I try to just jump into higher stuff I understand every word and zero sentences.
Deflationism escapes me, I think I'm on/about the level with you concerning the latter two
So an inflationist theory of truth is something like
x is true if and only if x corresponds to the facts in the world
or
x is true if and only if x is the rational end-point of enquiry
or something like that
deflationism says
'x' is true if and only if x
that is, the truth of a sentence (x) depends only upon the content of the sentence, not on a uniform definition like 'correspondence with facts in the world'
what I'm hearing here is that you're primarily interested in the way language relates to the notion of an objective truth and, to a lesser extent, the way it bears upon subjective perception?
I am putting it into third-grade language for my own well-being I am sorry if this makes your interest set sound like baby interests
i'm interested in how our intuitive notion of truth operates and its relation to linguistics, yeah
SwissLionWe are beside ourselves!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
The finer points of renaissance politics are having me publicly shamed, exiled to my villa in the countryside, and expertly and systematically forgotten about.
The finer points of renaissance politics are having me publicly shamed, exiled to my villa in the countryside, and expertly and systematically forgotten about.
It is much safer to be feared than loved.
AMP'd on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
Options
SwissLionWe are beside ourselves!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Yeah Machiavelli is a pretty big douche.
Actually reading about the guy he wrote that book for just this afternoon!
i thought with the extra credit i would've had four points added to my final grade, but alas, only three points were to be added.
which is a real kick in the dick because now i need to waste time studying for this fucking class instead of studying for more important classes, just so that i can make a B
Dead Legend on
diablo III - beardsnbeer#1508 Mechwarrior Online - Rusty Bock
I just set a record for least amount of time wasted on an expert-level game of minesweeper when I should be outlining: 135 seconds
it's preparing you for your legal career, which, if my internship has taught me anything, is mostly about competitively playing brick breaker on a blackberry while waiting for your case to be called
satansfingers on
0
Options
Zonugal(He/Him) The Holiday ArmadilloI'm Santa's representative for all the southern states. And Mexico!Registered Userregular
edited April 2010
Hey Bongi! Philosophy Major High-Five!!! Woo!
Where's you area of specialty, if you've chosen one in regards to your studies?
Posts
ok see I don't even have the wherewithal to know if that's all some kind of metajoke because it definitely looks like one
no that is really what my dissertation is about!
tsatansfingers: it's okay! i think i am not on the side of deflationism. inflate your truth all you want! (do not inflate your truth all you want that is silly)
Are you doing your Masters?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
no, undergrad
oh!
see I thought you were making a joke because semantic inconsistency sort of applies here because I understand the strict denotative qualities of the words that you're using, and yet do not understand their meanings, thus illustrating a pretty significant gap in the signifier-signified equation
therefore semantic inconsistency, I think. and therefore a metajoke. I haven't really studied this stuff!
and I have no clue what ontological deflationism or the liar paradox are.
the liar paradox shows that our common-sense notion of truth is logically inconsistent (i.e. the truth-conditions for our sentences are trivial)
the inconsistency approach is the view that this does not really matter because adequate communication only requires that speakers share the same semantic theory(/theories), not that they are logically non-trivial
it's difficult to explain with no background, it's all very esoteric
(No, I don't.)
I know you probably hate this question, but what do you plan to 'do' with your degree?
What spring does with the cherry trees.
mostly just because of the damn vocabulary. Anytime I try to just jump into higher stuff I understand every word and zero sentences.
Deflationism escapes me, I think I'm on/about the level with you concerning the latter two
I'm just glad I only need to take 24 credit hours worth of gen eds
So an inflationist theory of truth is something like
x is true if and only if x corresponds to the facts in the world
or
x is true if and only if x is the rational end-point of enquiry
or something like that
deflationism says
'x' is true if and only if x
that is, the truth of a sentence (x) depends only upon the content of the sentence, not on a uniform definition like 'correspondence with facts in the world'
crossing my fingers because that would be gooolden
I'm sure that there's a bunch of ramifications for the meaning of truth, but that seems to be the easiest way to understand it.
Sticking to maths, where I have changed from BSc Maths to BSc Maths and its Applications! My 3rd year will now be a year in industry, which should be awesome.
what I'm hearing here is that you're primarily interested in the way language relates to the notion of an objective truth and, to a lesser extent, the way it bears upon subjective perception?
I am putting it into third-grade language for my own well-being I am sorry if this makes your interest set sound like baby interests
i'm interested in how our intuitive notion of truth operates and its relation to linguistics, yeah
something like that
A sad day
Too bad you weren't at this lan party I attended a year ago.
Dude with a 1:01 time won a $1000 processor.
It is much safer to be feared than loved.
Actually reading about the guy he wrote that book for just this afternoon!
i have a 79.3 in biology
i thought with the extra credit i would've had four points added to my final grade, but alas, only three points were to be added.
which is a real kick in the dick because now i need to waste time studying for this fucking class instead of studying for more important classes, just so that i can make a B
it's preparing you for your legal career, which, if my internship has taught me anything, is mostly about competitively playing brick breaker on a blackberry while waiting for your case to be called
Where's you area of specialty, if you've chosen one in regards to your studies?
most stripper outfits i've seen didn't need all that much designing
Language-Logic-Mathematics-Science
Cool. I'm doing my focus on Ethical and American Philosophy.
It's like lace! The beauty is more about the holes than the materials.
I am uncomfortable with how much use I am getting out of this lace simile lately.
Just three... just three... I've slept 5 hours in t he last whatever it's been since tuesday morning
pragmatism, boooo
it's a double joke, because i am a non-cognitivist and a realist!!!
I gots a wiener
but do you really have a wiener
or do you just find it useful to believe that you have a wiener???