Realism, Idealism, Ontology
Realism
Is reality dependent of us and our minds
Beyond what our minds ascertain
This position - connected to theory of meaning - meaning of propositions is what makes them true/false
Depends on its truth conditions - what fact makes it true
Anti-realists
We need verification conditions
-when truth conditions apply
-and we are justified to hold them
E.g. Past and present
Past- can't be repeated
-ways of getting hold of it is. fallible.
Said statements about the past - verification - transcendent
Anti - realism is worried about the intelligibillity of statments that have verification - transcendent truth conditions
For it is held, meaning of statement ought to be spelled out in what would verify if not simplify the conditions of its truth
If statements about the past are verification transcendent
-it has been assumed that verification is understood
But we have lots of statments that are not verifiable that way
-others not verifiable at all
It is a sub-class of wider statements that in principle we have ideas of how they might be verified
Its a practical difficulty of some kind not of principle
What can we say about these statements as a class?
Especially considering Dummett's meaning is use
Does not follow that one has to recognise circumstances in the sentences as in recognising use entailing recognising verifying circumstances
*We obtain meaning from use ie a proposition means something if it represents something other than itself. We have to combine words correctly so we secure the actual meaning of the statement.*
E.g. "My parents love me" - can't make such a statement. Don't know if its really true. I have to know that they are conscious of the love they have for me. It is not possible. Problematic in that it fails the test in securing something real. Its not nonsense. Its real to us.
But a question has to do with reality and concept
Is it possible to get out of concept to grasp reality?
Not so.
Is reality not specificable in
Is reality dependent of us and our minds
Beyond what our minds ascertain
This position - connected to theory of meaning - meaning of propositions is what makes them true/false
Depends on its truth conditions - what fact makes it true
Anti-realists
We need verification conditions
-when truth conditions apply
-and we are justified to hold them
E.g. Past and present
Past- can't be repeated
-ways of getting hold of it is. fallible.
Said statements about the past - verification - transcendent
Anti - realism is worried about the intelligibillity of statments that have verification - transcendent truth conditions
For it is held, meaning of statement ought to be spelled out in what would verify if not simplify the conditions of its truth
If statements about the past are verification transcendent
-it has been assumed that verification is understood
But we have lots of statments that are not verifiable that way
-others not verifiable at all
It is a sub-class of wider statements that in principle we have ideas of how they might be verified
Its a practical difficulty of some kind not of principle
What can we say about these statements as a class?
Especially considering Dummett's meaning is use
Does not follow that one has to recognise circumstances in the sentences as in recognising use entailing recognising verifying circumstances
*We obtain meaning from use ie a proposition means something if it represents something other than itself. We have to combine words correctly so we secure the actual meaning of the statement.*
E.g. "My parents love me" - can't make such a statement. Don't know if its really true. I have to know that they are conscious of the love they have for me. It is not possible. Problematic in that it fails the test in securing something real. Its not nonsense. Its real to us.
But a question has to do with reality and concept
Is it possible to get out of concept to grasp reality?
Not so.
Is reality not specificable in