[lit-ideas] Re: "A Proposition Is A Fact" (Tractatus)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2009 08:57:26 EDT
In a message dated 4/22/2009 7:51:54 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I'm not sure the relevance of this. My problem is that while the utterance
or assertion of a proposition may itself be a fact (of utterance or
assertion) that would not make the propositional content _true_ or such that
it
corresponds with the facts - and in this sense it would not make the
proposition, viewed not as a linguistic act but in terms of its content, "a
fact".
----
Well, this requires what Grice calls 'metaphysical argument' but the rest
of the philosophers call 'transcendental argument'. I am an empiricist alla
Descartes, so I live in solipsismo metodologico.
But some people say that the _point_ of having a belief is that it's a
belief _de re_.
I think the cat is on the mat.
While it is true that I may be wrong, since it's not a cat, but a toy cat
and it's not a mat but a Persian antique, these people argue that at least
ONE of our beliefs has to be true (Davidson).
So I suppose you can surprise me by wanting to stick to _that_ belief.
Now, for ordinary false beliefs, we distinguish the content versus the
'pseudo-fact'. "I believe WASPs carry a lot of interbreed", "I believe all
African Americans descend from slaves". Since there is falsity in each, it
cannot be a fact, or a pseudo-fact. It's a _content_.
Ditto,
Meinong spent his birthday thinking of the square circle.
-----
i.e. that it existed, or was conceivable.
----
For some people, like me, Myro, and Peacocke, propositions get constructed
ONLY for the purpose of having something to think about. It's their role
qua objects of propositional or psychological attitudes that justifies their
role in the scheme of things. We don't need facts.
It's like the Duchess of Devonshire, who, like McEvoy lives in the
Midlands, would say, "People find theirselves with automobiles but nowhere to
go
with". So the justification of the stately-home scheme is the justification
of people to have a place to drive their cars to. Ditto for propositions.
Kramer has been saying, elsewhere, that this is the fifth-axiom. While we
can very well be satisfied, as logicians, and philosophers, I say, with
contents and propositions; some rougher types prefer _facts_, the fifth axiom.
Facts bore me.
Every time someone presents something as a matter of fact, I doze. I'm not
interested in facts. There's nothing you can do with them. You cannot
transgiverse them with a clean conscience, etc.
Facts are limiting. It's what it's called luck-egalitarianism. Geary was
born in Memphis. That's a fact. Is it _necessary_? No. Surely it limits him.
Peter was born _pink_. Is that a fact? Surely it limits him. Dawkins was
born almost paralytic? Is this a limitation on him? Sure. Had he born with
the body of an athlete he would be doing the bars.
----
I never found _one_ interesting fact.
Now a 'fact' is not a 'fict'. When Borges wrote his little book, the
editor said, "Now you need a title". "Fictions" he said. "Artifices". They
were
not facts, they were ficts.
Cheers,
JL
**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the
web. Get the Radio Toolbar!
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
