Re: A quote (and question) about intuitionism

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:35:13 -0800, Keith Ramsay
<kramsay@xxxxxxx> wrote:

One attempt as explaining the meaning of a sentence, for
example, is to say that knowing the meaning is the same as
knowing the set of conditions under which it would be true.
(I think many philosophers would dispute such a definition
in some way, but it is some approximation to the way that
"meaning" is understood in lots of philosophies.) In
constructivism, it's closer to say that knowing the meaning
of a sentence is knowing the conditions under which it can
be considered known. (Probably many constructivists would
dispute this definition in some way, but it's similarly
some approximation to the way "meaning" is understood by
them.)

Known by whom?

Think about the claim that

(*) "there are statements that are true right now that
are not currently known to be true".

What does it mean? If you look at it from a constructivist
point of view, you understand its meaning as closely tied to
the kind of experience that (in some sense) justifies saying
it.

Whose experience?

I don't get the impression that you're defending solipsism!
So, if you believe in the existence of conscious minds other
than your own, aren't you already a realist? If so, what is
the point of not also being realistic about other entities?

If you're going to argue for a theory which take subjectivity
seriously, surely you are going to have to pay very serious
attention to precisely who the "subject" is. How can you do
that subjectively?

It would be like if, during the discussion of how to define
"planet", someone had asked, "Yes, we have these possible
definitions, and facts about Pluto. But, definitions and
measurements aside, is Pluto a planet *really*?" Since it's
a matter of definition, this doesn't make much sense.
Likewise, whether "P or not P" is true is a matter of how
you define "or" (as opposed to how you define "true"),
or at least constructivist philosophy seems to treat it so.

I still don't know how to argue against this. I can only
offer as a psychological datum that when I heard people
discussing the Pluto business, it was completely obvious to
me that the question whether Pluto was or was not "really"
a planet was meaningless. Similarly, I have no difficulty
in understanding that Euclidean geometry is not necessarily
true of the physical world. I am generally good at sniffing
out hidden assumptions. Yet I don't smell a rat in either
classical logic or philosophical realism. (This may be
irrelevant, but at least it's true. I'm not pretending
anything here.)

(Incidentally, back in 1991 you gave the clearest and most
succinct statement of realism that I have ever read. As you
know more about mathematics and logic than I do, and clearly
understand realism at least as well as I do, I have to assume
that you have learned something since 1991, while I am stuck
in the mud. Is it possible for you to explain to me how you
moved beyond realism?)

What seems to me rather closer to the spirit of what you are
saying is Einstein's demonstration of the relativity of
simultaneity. To my mind, that is really disturbing, and I
cannot seem to rid myself of the belief that there really is
a single "now" moment stretching across the universe. (I do
intend to study relativity properly someday, to see if I can
rid myself of this entrenched but objectively mistaken habit
of mind.)

I accept Einstein's ideas partly on the basis of authority
and partly on the basis of some study of special relativity
theory a long time ago. But I still cannot find any basis
at all for questioning my understanding of reality, meaning
and truth. I certainly question (and largely dismiss) what
is called naive realism, but only on the basis of a deeper,
less naive realism.

How can any discourse undermine what seems to be part of the
basis of language itself? /Whatever/ your views, if they can
be expressed in symbols at all, and understood by other minds
than your own, how can you not be taking for granted some kind
of logic that is part of how language works? If you are doing
so, then are you arguing that in fact the way in which language
works is better described in constructive rather than realist
terms? Indeed, are you saying the constructivism is more
realistic than realism? (And does that make it surreal?) :-)
--
Angus Rodgers
(twirlip@ eats spam; reply to angusrod@)
Contains mild peril
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: A quote (and question) about intuitionism
    ... is to say that knowing the meaning is the same as ... |>knowing the set of conditions under which it would be true. ... in the sense that constructivism is ... |If you're going to argue for a theory which take subjectivity ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Chaplains Work
    ... knowing the words and floor work. ... be given to discuss the meaning and relevancy of the ritual. ... jurisdictions that deny their members such open intercourse between ... Auburn Park Lodge No. 789? ...
    (soc.org.freemasonry)
  • Re: Ritual and Purpose
    ... Anthropologists can address this point, ... The principle is that knowing the story line, knowing the meaning, ...
    (soc.org.freemasonry)
  • Re: Provability
    ... It's clearly a counterexample to your claim. ... then the implication is constructively true ... the meaning of implication ... constructivism and formalism. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: OT The ATC
    ... Well I have seen many bodies with gunshot wounds, ... Without really knowing what you do I couldn't make any comparison ... rarely right up at point and knowing that the ratio of support staff ... Darsy made the point that this is only one meaning of the R word. ...
    (uk.rec.motorcycles)