Re: OUTGOEDELING A HUMAN?

On 26 Feb, 17:16, "LauLuna" wrote:
On Feb 26, 1:54 pm, aatu.koskensi...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Why must we suppose there is some determinate, non-ambigous, unique
explanation for what 'true' in natural languages amounts to?

Suppose we must not suppose it. In what sense would it be true that we
must not suppose it?

In the sense that if there is no such explanation, it is incorrect to
suppose there is.

'This sentence is not true' is not special in this respect: it is
true iff it asserts a state of affairs as being the case and that
state of affairs is effectively the case.

But what state of affairs is that? For most sentences, even those
involving the notion of truth, I can explain what the sentence being
true would amount to, but I have no idea what to say in case of the
liar.

--
Aatu Koskensilta (aatu.koskensilta@xxxxxxxxx)

"Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, daruber muss man schweigen"
- Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

.