 |
|
You are not logged in! F.A.Q Log in Register |
 |
|
 |
 Now online (1)dariusgriffin ...and 577 guests Last 5 registered Oplandisks nothingstar N_loop yipe foxtrotromeo Browse members... |
 |
Members 8025Messages 2614124 Today 3 Topics 127542 |
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
You said it!!! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
"I didn't see anywhere your definition of the word." + "Logical truth. A statement which is necessarily true because, by virtue of its logical form, it cannot be used to make a false assertion." eh.. first you say you didn't see my definition and then you post my definition as a definition of the word.. I think it is in fact you that have somehow misunderstood the word which is a common thing when one reads a word one dosen't know, but thinks one can extract its meaning from the context.. I know too many people who use "banal" about extraordinary or silly things while it in fact means "ordinary." They do this because the word, if you don't know what it means, can be percieved both ways in just about any context. "I hope that this is enough evidence for you that a tautology is what I say it is. It gives analytic truths" Tautologies don't necessarily give analytical truths; many things can be tautologies, and it is a purely structural thing while an analytical truth is something that is true just in virtue of something being itself. Not even the two other rhetorical definitions up there necessarily yield analytical truths.. for example "I'm really hungry, I want some food!" isn't an analytical sentence (while "when someone is hungry he wants food" is) Now, when you talk about meaning, it is in no way so that the "for something to be meaningful [etc]" sentence up there is an analytical truth, as the verification principle would then have to be contained in the term "meaning," and it just isn't, and it most definately isn't something that can be just presupposed. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
thats what i've always learned a tautology was! |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
well, yes I was unaware of the rhetorical definition of the word, but it isn't something that necessarily yields an analytical truth regardless. . |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
also, all dictionaries I have found have both definitions of the word, so either yours are faulty or you intentionally left mine out from the two first dictionary quotes. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_ana lytic.htm "analytic statements are essentially uninformative tautologies." As i said, it is impossible to have a discussion when we can't agree on the language that we are using. I don't know why the language is so different in Norway but this IS what it is in England. I definitely haven't got it wrong. This is what I have been taught. I have read its explicit definition. I haven't just tried to teach myself philosophy. If you don't believe me I can ask my Philosophy teacher to email you and he will be able to give you much better references and explanations as to why I am right. "I'm really hungry, I want some food" isn't exactly a tautology because it is not correct by definition, there are other possibilities, such as I am hungry but I don't want any food because I am on a diet and so it is synthetic and therefore NOT A TAUTOLOGY. Taffmonster, You've always learnt that, because that's what they teach in England :) |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I just said I used 3 completely random sources. I am not so pathetic as to leave your definitions out. I'm also not a liar. So when I say that I didn't see your definition, it means I didn't see your definition |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
If something is true, by its very definition, that makes it analytic. An analytic truth is one that is certain and has no other possibilities. A synthetic truth is one that is only ever probable and always gives other possibilities. It says in wikipedia that it IS true by virtue of its form. This means that it is true by its very definition and therefore certain and analytic |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Hmm... The Mastah is Right. I tell you... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Tautology An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Ohhhhhhhh now i understand what DM's example was all about. Yes that is an example of a tautology because it is a statement that is true by definition, there are no other alternatives. But this also makes me right. I said that a tautology was something that was true by definition, there are no other alternatives. a bachelor is an unmarried man, 2+2=4 These are both tautologies as if we came to any other conclusion we would be wrong as they are right by definition. I think that.. Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not is an analytic truth. Although it sounds as if it is about the world and therefore synthetic, it is not. It is about the concept that either something will happen or will not, by definition. As soon as we bring definitions into the equation it becomes a topic about language, rendering it analytic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
We are talking about the words and not the actual rain. here we can use an example of ants. All ants are parasitic or some are. We aren't talking about the ants, we are talking about the word ants. This makes it analytic, not synthetic. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What about the possibility of "No ants are parasitic"? And about maths, all math sentences are tautologic because maths is a closed language that defines iteself within itself... |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ok I'm going to take this point by point. 1: There are two definitions of the word tautological. In the one, it is a sentence with a logical structure that makes it always (logically) true (this is the definition I was using). In the second, it means repeating something with different words. 2: Neither of these definitions match the definition of an analytical truth; "a sentence that is true in that it predicts of its subject that it is itself: a bachelor is an unmarried man." 3: In some cases, rhetorically tautological sentences can be somewhat analytical, but that doesn't mean that they always are. My example with "I am hungry" is a repetition of what I just said in different words; if I say "I am hungry," I do not say it without the intention of having someone realise that I want some food. Also, even if you are on a diet, when you're hungry, you do want food, you're just suppressing the urge. 4: For some one thing to be another is for them to be identical and that is for something to be neither more or less than what it is identical to. 5: If tautologies, in any sense of the word, are capable of being something which isn't an analytical truth, these words are not synonymous. 6: "I'm really hungry, I want some food" isn't exactly a tautology because it is not correct by definition." You are still talking about analytical truth, NOT a tautology; a tautology isn't necessarily something that is true by definition unless something you say twice worded differently is, and it isn't as there are thousands of things you can say twice with different words without it having any sort of necessary truth to it, as you already noted; that sentence is a tautology, but not an analytical truth. I think I'm repeating myself now, but I'll shower and get back to you. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
oh, I didn't really mean it like that, I was mostly thinking your sources were a bit faulty, as I checked that online one you gave and it didn't have both definitions which most other dictionaries seem to have. anyway, you did see my definition and you even posted it, you just haven't understood it or what I am talking about when I was first talking about tautologies. Likewise, I was unaware of the rhetorical use of the word. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
The Philos |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
Are comin' |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
In storms |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
I tell ya |
||||||||
| Attached picture | |||||||||
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
ehh.. "Yes that is an example of a tautology because it is a statement that is true by definition" well, you're right in that it is a tautology by the rhetoric definition, but it isn't true by definition, which, again, isn't what a tautology is.. true by definition is analytical. "a bachelor is an unmarried man, 2+2=4" those are analytical truths. The first is also a tautology, but in virtue of something completely different; it is an analytical truth in that it is true by definition, but it is a tautology in that it just repeats itself. "Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not is an analytic truth." no, that is a logical tautology; true in any combination of circumstances; true whether it rains or not, which is the only thing the sentence is making a statement about; true if it snows, true if the sun is shining, true if someone walks their dog (though we don't really know in that case, it would still have a 100% chance of being true). |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
No. When dogs walk all truths come to an end. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
now, back to the original point. no matter what word you use for it (I will use analytical truth, as that is what it is), the verification principle isn't so that if you put it in a sentence saying that either meaning or significance is [Verification principle], you get an analytical truth and if Ayer had to argue for that (which he would have to as opposed to if he say that meaning is what something means), he defeats himself in that you wouldn't have to argue for something being what it is if what you're arguing it to be is what it is (or analytical). then, again, the verification principle fails its own criteria and becomes nonsense or at best saying nothing. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
that's when dogs walk their owner, not when their owner walks them. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hu hu hu |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
do you want to blend in? |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
couldnt put it better myself. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
hu hu hu |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
i see chomsky, hooray <3<3<3 |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
My favourite philosophers: Jim Davidson Bernard Manning Jesus |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jesus was a magician, not a philosopher |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
jesus was way cool |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
What are you talking about. They had stories about him going to the synegog and debating with all the great minds he could find. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
| |||||||||
|
|
He was a bit preachy, though. |
||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Messageboard index
|
|||||||||
