Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"). Those kind of questions can be asked in the off-topic section.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Atla wrote:Left and right as directions go on "in a straight line" indefinitely, are you saying that the universe as a whole has some kind of chirality?
I can't see any reason why you would think I am saying that. I say that objects with reflective asymmetry have chirality. The universe isn't an object with reflective asymmetry. It isn't an object. It's a collective term for the entire history of all objects.
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7091
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Sculptor1 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 4th, 2021, 6:06 am Here's a picture of a right-handed screw (the usual type):

Image


Any thoughts on this?
Touché

TADA!!!!!
Atla
Posts: 2540
Joined: January 30th, 2018, 1:18 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Atla »

Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 1:18 pm
Atla wrote:Left and right as directions go on "in a straight line" indefinitely, are you saying that the universe as a whole has some kind of chirality?
I can't see any reason why you would think I am saying that. I say that objects with reflective asymmetry have chirality. The universe isn't an object with reflective asymmetry. It isn't an object. It's a collective term for the entire history of all objects.
That's not what people usually mean by universe, but let's call it the "world" then. What does reflective asymmetry have to do with directions in the word? Say the direction in the world that goes left from your POV and goes on in a straight line indefinitely.
True philosophy points to the Moon
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:Assuming "objective" means observer-independent,...
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I use it to refer to extra-mental things: objects, and statements or propositions about them. As I said in the OP, I think "observer-independent" is too ambiguous for reasons I gave there and elsewhere.
I don't know you mean by "extra-mental". Is it possible to define "extra" and "mental" separately in this context, and then explain what they mean together?

Scott wrote:...then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am By "redundant" I assume you mean "of no use".
No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.

Scott wrote:Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I wouldn't. I'd use "subjective proposition" to refer to statements about mental things; statements that are not empirically verifiable and are not definitions of terminology. I don't see any contradiction.
It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?

Scott wrote:In other words, the actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring). However, to reiterate my earlier point, I think the preceding sentence is a tautology, due to my understanding the meaning of the word proposition.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I don't think "Here's a picture of a right-handed screw (the usual type):" is a tautology.
Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."

Scott wrote:..But words and sentences are equivocal and context-dependent.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I disagree that words and sentences are equivocal and context-dependent. If they are context-dependent and the context is not specified (either explicitly or implicitly) then they are equivocal. If the context is specified then they're not equivocal. Simply stating that words are equivocal is to give up on being clearly understood.
I will agree to disagree on this matter.

Perhaps we can settle on agreeing to the following: Words and sentences can often be equivocal and context-dependent.

For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.

It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.


Scott wrote:
Steve3007 wrote:(2) Does the fact that it is linguistic convention to call this screw right-handed make the proposition less objective or non-objective?
Since we are talking about the objectivity of a so-called proposition itself (versus a quality like tastiness, tallness, height, fruit-ness, vegetable-ness, blueness, redness, etc.)
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I disagree with you placing (for example) "tastiness" and "height" in the same category as you seem to have done here. Tastiness is subjective. Height is not subjective. It is relative. Different things. The statement "this is tasty" is subjective. The statement "I am tall" is not subjective. It's just incomplete until the question "relative to what/who?" has been answered.
I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.

"Tastiness" is not a proposition.

"Height" is not a proposition.

My point was that it's very different to ask if a concept or quality (e.g. tastiness, height, etc.) is objective/subjective/observer-dependent/etc. versus asking if a sentence or (more specifically) a proposition is.

Scott wrote:I don't know what it means for a proposition to be "more objective" than another proposition, especially since I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 11:39 am I still don't know why you're saying that the phrase "objective proposition" is redundant. I take that to mean "useless", but you do seem to have made some use of it, albeit putting it in scare-quotes.
I am not completely sure what scare quotes are, but I doubt I would use them if I did. I don't usually aim to scare anyone.

I am partly quoting the OP, in which the phrase "objective proposition" is used twice, but also quoting the phrase for grammatical purposes if and when I want to talk about the phrase itself versus just using the phrase myself. In analogy, if I wanted to talk about the word "bananas" I would quote the word to clarify that I am talking about the word "bananas" and not talking about actual bananas. Granted, single quotes or italics also can work for the purpose, and my grammar is not good enough to know which of the three is most appropriate in any given situation.


Regarding little Goose, I wish I could take credit for the name, but my wife had named the cat before we even met, so the credit is hers.
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:I don't know you mean by "extra-mental". Is it possible to define "extra" and "mental" separately in this context, and then explain what they mean together?
Outside the mind. "Extra" as in words like "extra-terrestrial", "extracurricular" and "extraordinary". "Mental" as in "of the mind". Objective propositions are (in my usage) propositions about more than just my mental state. They're propositions about what I propose to be things that exist outside of minds and what I therefore believe to be sensible to/verifiable by other people. "It is raining" = objective. "It is raining in my heart" = subjective (about feelings happening in my mind).
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Scott wrote:No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.
OK. So I don't think "objective proposition" (in my usage) is redundant in that sense. i.e. the word "objective" isn't a synonym (or antonym) of "proposition". "Objective" means extra-mental and "proposition" means a sentence proposing something to be true. So an objective proposition is a sentence proposing something to be true about something outside my (or anybody else's) mind. e.g. "It is raining" or "There is a window to my right".
It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?
I use the word "proposition" to refer to a particular type of sentence: one that proposes something to be true. An objective proposition (in my usage) proposes something to be true about the extra-mental world, and its truth condition (the condition which must obtain in order for it to be true) is publicly accessible. E.g. for "There is a window to my right" to be true there must be a window to my right (using all words, including the names for the parts of human bodies, in their standard ways). That truth condition is publicly accessible.
Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."
OK. That doesn't look like a tautology to me. It seems to be a description of what it means for a proposition to be objective. i.e. that it is about things that are external to all minds and its truth condition is therefore public, not private.
I will agree to disagree on this matter.

Perhaps we can settle on agreeing to the following: Words and sentences can often be equivocal and context-dependent.
Yes, I agree. And if we aren't bothered about being unequivocally understood we can leave it at that. But if we aim for unequivocal and unambiguous understanding then we can attempt to clarify the way we're using words in the current context, if it's not already obvious and/or if we're using the words in non-standard ways.
For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.

It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.
Well, if it's a question of degree, and we aim to be understood, I guess we can attempt to reduce the degree with those clarifications of the way we're using words (if non-standard). But, to me at least, that aim isn't served by just saying "Word X has 3 or 4 different meanings". I think we should say something along the lines of: "Of the 3 or 4 different meanings of word X, I'm using this one... How about you?".
I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.

"Tastiness" is not a proposition.

"Height" is not a proposition.
I agree that those words are not propositions. In English, very few single words constitute sentences, and propositions is a subset of sentences. I would class "This food is tasty" as a subjective proposition and "I am tall" as an incomplete objective proposition (unless its completion is implicit).
My point was that it's very different to ask if a concept or quality (e.g. tastiness, height, etc.) is objective/subjective/observer-dependent/etc. versus asking if a sentence or (more specifically) a proposition is.
I don't think it's massively different. For a given property, like height or tastiness, it's generally quite easy to form a proposition around it. In general, for property X the proposition would take a form like: "Object Y has property X.".
I am not completely sure what scare quotes are, but I doubt I would use them if I did. I don't usually aim to scare anyone.
Scare quotes are quotes that people use to indicate that they're using a word in an ironic, referential, or otherwise non-standard sense. Often used to distance oneself from the word and effectively say something like "this is not the term I'd use myself" or "I don't regard this term as strictly appropriate".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

As opposed to the use of quotes simply to indicate that we're quoting what someone else has said.
I am partly quoting the OP, in which the phrase "objective proposition" is used twice, but also quoting the phrase for grammatical purposes if and when I want to talk about the phrase itself versus just using the phrase myself. In analogy, if I wanted to talk about the word "bananas" I would quote the word to clarify that I am talking about the word "bananas" and not talking about actual bananas. Granted, single quotes or italics also can work for the purpose, and my grammar is not good enough to know which of the three is most appropriate in any given situation.
Yes, that's a use of scare-quotes.
Regarding little Goose, I wish I could take credit for the name, but my wife had named the cat before we even met, so the credit is hers.
:D . Our cat is called Lola. A less imaginative name. If you get a pet goose you could call it Cat!
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Pattern-chaser wrote:And here you have homed in on the reason why I don't like to use the term "objective" on a philosophy forum. It carries a range of meanings, and it is never clear which of them is intended.
Steve3007 wrote: May 5th, 2021, 12:29 pm It may true that some people use the term "objective" in different ways, but I don't think it's true that it's never clear which of them is intended. One way to make it clear which of them is intended is to say which of them is intended. I use it to refer to statements about extra-mental things...
OK, maybe "never" is an exaggeration. And I agree that "one way to make it clear which of them is intended is to say which of them is intended". So, since you use the word here to refer to "extra-mental things", why not go directly to the source, as it were, and refer to them as extra-mental things? Then your meaning is crystal clear. 🤔
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Terrapin Station »

Scott wrote: May 4th, 2021, 12:38 pm Assuming "objective" means observer-independent, then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant. Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
The standard definition of "proposition" is that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences.

So is this to say that you believe that meaning is objective/observer-independent? Or are you using an alternate definition of "proposition"?
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:So, since you use the word here to refer to "extra-mental things", why not go directly to the source, as it were, and refer to them as extra-mental things? Then your meaning is crystal clear. 🤔
Because it's a bit longer and more cumbersome. But other than that, yes, whenever I want to refer to an objective proposition or objective statement I could refer to a proposition about extra-mental things. We could do that with a lot of words. We could replace them with more than one other word, as is done in dictionaries.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

But then someone will ask what we mean by one or more of the words in the phrase that we used to replace the original. For example, Scott asked for the meaning of the words "extra" and "mental" in "extra-mental". So if we keep going we'll end up replacing every word with an ever expanding list of other words. That's why I think it's best to stick to "objective" and write a short note explaining the way I'm using that word if it's not clear from the context, rather than replacing every instance of the word with that note.

As a former software engineer, I bet you'd agree with me that there are various good reasons not to replace every call/reference to a function with the inlined code for that function, even though it reduces the overhead of the function call. :D
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 8:00 am But then someone will ask what we mean by one or more of the words in the phrase that we used to replace the original. For example, Scott asked for the meaning of the words "extra" and "mental" in "extra-mental". So if we keep going we'll end up replacing every word with an ever expanding list of other words. That's why I think it's best to stick to "objective" and write a short note explaining the way I'm using that word if it's not clear from the context, rather than replacing every instance of the word with that note.

As a former software engineer, I bet you'd agree with me that there are various good reasons not to replace every call/reference to a function with the inlined code for that function, even though it reduces the overhead of the function call. :D
I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).

Objectivity refers to anything from non-mental objects to unemotional, all the way through the spectrum to correspondence with what actually is. All those meanings are related, but anyone can see that it is important to clarify which of them is intended, if communication is to occur. I have trawled through many online posts, considering this viewpoint. And I have honestly found, in ALL cases, that substituting the intended meaning for the broad and general parent term ("objective") improved clarity, or would've done so if the author had done it.

Saying what you mean, explicitly and clearly, is necessary for us to communicate successfully.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Steve3007 »

Pattern-chaser wrote:I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).
Yes, I think fallacies of equivocation and of ambiguity are quite common, and often lead to long arguments (here at least). I guess sometimes the equivocation or ambiguity is deliberate as you've said and sometimes it seems to be just because people don't place any particular importance on trying, at least, to use words in unambiguous ways.
Objectivity refers to anything from non-mental objects to unemotional, all the way through the spectrum to correspondence with what actually is. All those meanings are related, but anyone can see that it is important to clarify which of them is intended, if communication is to occur. I have trawled through many online posts, considering this viewpoint. And I have honestly found, in ALL cases, that substituting the intended meaning for the broad and general parent term ("objective") improved clarity, or would've done so if the author had done it.
Yes, I noticed you talking about this in another topic recently.
Saying what you mean, explicitly and clearly, is necessary for us to communicate successfully.
True, but there's almost always a trade-off between clarity/precision/unambiguity and brevity/succinctness. I suppose it's a bit like the trade-off in software design between short, readable code and code that executes as quickly as possible.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 9:15 am
Pattern-chaser wrote:I take your points; all of them. But I think "objective" has earned special treatment. Although you are not guilty of this, many philosophers deliberately use the word to smear their meaning. They say one thing, clearly, but by implication, which gives them deniability. When challenged, they assert that they intended a different meaning of the words they used, even though we and they know this to be untrue. But we can't prove it. Deniability is the twin of alt-truth (whereby truth is created by repetition, not by being true, a la Blair, Bush, Trump, Johnson...).


Yes, I think fallacies of equivocation and of ambiguity are quite common, and often lead to long arguments (here at least).
I guess sometimes the equivocation or ambiguity is deliberate as you've said and sometimes it seems to be just because people don't place any particular importance on trying, at least, to use words in unambiguous ways.
I once spent some MONTHS debating hard-and-absolute Objective Reality with an Objectivist. After getting past all of the misdirections, and the 'oughts' presented as 'is's, he eventually asserted that he meant unbiased - in the everyday sense, not even the rigorous/scientific sense - when he wrote "Objective". Deniability. I was not amused.


Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 9:15 am I suppose it's a bit like the trade-off in software design between short, readable code and code that executes as quickly as possible.
I always tried to achieve both, thereby making a trade-off unnecessary. I succeeded quite often, I think. 😉
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 6th, 2021, 7:30 am
Scott wrote: May 4th, 2021, 12:38 pm Assuming "objective" means observer-independent, then in logical contexts and in most philosophical contexts, I generally consider the phrase "objective proposition" to be redundant. Likewise, I would generally look at the phrase "subjective proposition" as a contradiction.
The standard definition of "proposition" is that propositions are the meanings of declarative sentences.

So is this to say that you believe that meaning is objective/observer-independent?
My answer would depend on what you mean by the word meaning.

I am also not sure what you mean by "standard definition" exactly, but I am not suggesting that what a word typically means "in logical contexts and most philosophical contexts" would be remotely the same as its standard definition.

However, the following section on Wikipedia might better explain the context within which I would usually interpret the term on a philosophy forum:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propositi ... t_in_logic
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
User avatar
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
The admin formerly known as Scott
Posts: 5765
Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
Contact:

Re: Do right-handed screws objectively exist?

Post by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes »

Scott wrote:No, sorry, that's not what I meant. I mean it in the sense that the phrase "unmarried bachelor" would be redundant, assuming the word bachelor necessarily entails the quality of being unmarried.
Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am OK. So I don't think "objective proposition" (in my usage) is redundant in that sense. i.e. the word "objective" isn't a synonym (or antonym) of "proposition".
Synonymousness is not what I meant by redundancy either. For instance, the phrases being a bachelor and being unmarried are not synonymous phrases, but being an unmarried bachelor is a redundant phrase.

While I meant the term without connotation, it might also be helpful to note that, in my own regional anecdotal experience, the word redundancy usually seems to have a positive connotation, which is both in my experience as a native speaker in my area of the USA and in my experience as a computer programmer. If I remember correctly, in certain business contexts, perhaps especially outside the USA, the term may be used in relation to firing a person from a paying job, which is presumably not a positive connotation. In contrast, I usually think of redundancy more in the sense of a helpful fail-safe, not in the sense of uselessness.

Scott wrote:It seems like you might be using the word "proposition" to just mean "sentence". Is that correct? If not, can you define what you mean by the word 'proposition'?
Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am I use the word "proposition" to refer to a particular type of sentence: one that proposes something to be true.
Depending on what you mean by "something" that may be roughly how I interpret the word proposition in this kind of context.

I think it is important whether it is a something (singular) or somethings (plural).

In logical contexts, I understand a proposition to be the singular (not plural) objective meaning--if any--of a sentence, such that a proposition follows rules of logic such that it is either true or false, and nothing in between at all.

For example, as I typically interpret the term in philosophical or logical contexts, the following would not be a proposition: "This sentence is false."

Likewise, the following would not be a proposition: "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."



Scott wrote:Sorry for the confusion. This is the sentence I was saying is a tautology: "The actual truth or falsehood of the proposition would be consistent for all observers, meaning if one observer/subject says the proposition is true and a second observer/subject says the proposition is false, one must be wrong, and the other must be right; that is, assuming they truly are both referring to the same singly proposition, meaning some kind of fallacy of equivocation is not occurring)."
Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am OK. That doesn't look like a tautology to me.
Fair enough, then I think that confirms that you and I use the word proposition very differently.


Scott wrote:For me, it's not only often, but also generally always, and thus just a question of degree.

It reminds me something I told my family once that my daughter liked: All memories are wrong, it's just a matter of degree.
Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am Well, if it's a question of degree, and we aim to be understood, I guess we can attempt to reduce the degree with those clarifications of the way we're using words (if non-standard). But, to me at least, that aim isn't served by just saying "Word X has 3 or 4 different meanings". I think we should say something along the lines of: "Of the 3 or 4 different meanings of word X, I'm using this one... How about you?".
Yes, I agree.

I purposely included examples of qualities that are subjective and objective, to show what they have in common, which is that they are not propositions.

"Tastiness" is not a proposition.

"Height" is not a proposition.
Steve3007 wrote: May 6th, 2021, 5:04 am I agree that those words are not propositions. In English, very few single words constitute sentences, and propositions is a subset of sentences. I would class "This food is tasty" as a subjective proposition and "I am tall" as an incomplete objective proposition (unless its completion is implicit).
As I use the terms, I would classify the sentence "This food is tasty" as a subjective and very equivocal sentence, not a proposition. Subjectivity is one thing, of many, that can make a sentence equivocal. But I respect that I use the term proposition differently than you, and that neither usage is necessarily right or wrong. I am also more than open to the idea that my usage is more idiosyncratic, but I think what matters to you or I is simply that we understand each other. :)
My entire political philosophy summed up in one tweet.

"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."

I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
Post Reply

Return to “General Philosophy”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021