Quine 係 semantical rule 個節,
佢唔係反對緊 formal systems
佢係認為 formal language 都唔會俾到一個 account 去解釋何謂 analyticity
咁佢主要有幾個 points:
1) 如果我地想用 semantical rules 去解釋 analyticity,
例如,我地咁 define: "statement S is analytic in language L0, if and only if ...",咁樣都係幫唔到我地理解咩係 analyticity
我估佢背後有點似 compositional semantics 嘅假定:
P iff Q 嘅 meaning 係由 P 同 Q 嘅 meaning 加上 logical connectives 去決定
如果你本身唔清楚 "statement S is analytic in language L0" 嘅 meaning,你都係唔會清楚 " statement S is analytic in language L0 iff ..." 嘅 meaning
我估佢呢度又係有啲假設
佢大概覺得 analyticity 係唔會相對 language, 目的
但 "always true according to truth tables", "postulate" 等等概念 specify 邊啲 statements 出黎係會相對唔同嘅其他因素
大概咁,Quine 認為呢啲概念解釋唔到 analyticity
不過講開又講2022-11-12 17:05:30
1方面我幾同意你,因為if and only if其實同=無分別,只係前者用係statement,後者用係啲term,而講得話A等於B,亦即係話你理解到A同B嘅meaning係一致
但點解我哋理解唔到A同B嘅meaning係一致,因為當我地話statement S is analytic in language L0,我哋並非唔明有咩statement係具有分析性,我哋係連分析性咩含意都唔知
而quine objection of intentionality, 必然性
其實唯獨2我先呆咗好撚耐,睇番之前另外巴打send篇文,同我自己搵到嘅文都係指緊quine認為analyticiy唔會相對language,換言之,即係所有language下/喺唔同axiom下此statement都為真,跟住先係叫analytic,我心諗分析性咁rigorous㗎咩,佢咁講無嘢係analytic㗎喎,然而佢section 1話first class analytic claim係無問題,Our problem, however, is analyticity; and here the major difficulty lies not in the first class of analytic statements, the logical truths, but rather in the second class, which depends on the notion of synonymy同section 3 話Necessarily all and only bachelors are bachelors
is evidently true, even supposing 'necessarily' so narrowly construed as to be truly applicable only to analytic statements,呢兩處指出quine認同嘅first class of analytic statements,但佢哋之所以啱就係建基於其背後某啲邏輯學家所pick up嘅axiom/postulate同notation(例如話我可以僅用sheffrer stroke就可以,唔洗再三假設埋其他logical connective),咁如果quine係咁rigorous的話,咁first class analytic claim佢就唔可以hold,但咁又同佢前文支持first class of analytic statements嘅立場,只係反對second class相矛盾,我嘅理解就係佢其實連first class of analytic statements都唔認同,只係相比被second class睇嗰樣好些少,但唔知有冇解錯
2,控制完就無,之後生起又再控制! 咁不斷Loop,咁衍生幾個我諗到嘅可能性!
a, 可能經過咁樣不斷壓抑情緒,個人會變温和咗
b, 個人越黎越壓抑, 越積越多,越搞越round
c, 無轉變過,只係重覆做一件咁嘅事
我會覺得你傾向揀a嘅! 但係會唔會有人會bc呢? 如果會應該點處理呢?
非台2022-11-13 05:47:35
我認同你呢個問題嘅
我以前都有個疑問
不過我突然諗到 可以有一個 Quinean reply
唔清楚Quine 會唔會咁睇,
但Quine 大可以承認自己有直覺,某啲 statements 佢地之為真嘅方式,唔 depend on empirical information
咁我地叫呢類做 analytic statements
問題係,我地點 define 出 the set of analytic statements?
如果最終我地唔可以 reduce analyticity 做一啲可以明白嘅概念,咁我地 define 唔到 the set of analytic statements
我skip咗confirmation holism嗰part,因為我仲未睇完vi
原來已經有前人代我質疑過另一個我唔明嘅事,如果quine唔明咩叫Analyticity嗰meaning,咁點解佢寫到十幾頁紙,咁咪自相矛盾,呢篇文嘅講法,what quine have in mind其實係analyticity喺歷史上被定下嘅意思,
而且最後嗰part幫我理解更多quine講乜
我可唔可以咁講,咩logical truth都好,佢仍然具有現實世界嘅性質,當我話蘋果係蘋果嘅時候,呢句說話之所以為真,一半用咗蘋果喺中文嘅意義,而另一半係用咗現實世界所有嘢都等同自己嘅性質,唔係因為我唔諗/唔分析呢個句子,就現實而言,嗰事實本身都係啱,所有句子皆牽涉兩面,analytic同synthetic 唔係咁分得開
但最後作者嘅反駁,我地其實都能夠hold到true in virtue of meaning
係嘅,任何句子都有兩面性,但喺特別例子下,(contingent analytic),呢種句子嘅meaning本身就足以為真,而現實世界嗰面點變都無影響呢個sentence係true,只影響其proposition為true姐(因為其為偶然),我地仍然可以撐佢係true in virtue of meaning
不過講開又講2022-11-16 03:35:37
唔係因為我唔諗/唔分析呢個句子嗰事實就會錯
非台2022-11-16 15:30:24
//原來已經有前人代我質疑過另一個我唔明嘅事,如果quine唔明咩叫Analyticity嗰meaning,咁點解佢寫到十幾頁紙,咁咪自相矛盾,呢篇文嘅講法,what quine have in mind其實係analyticity喺歷史上被定下嘅意思,//
呢篇文算係幫 Quine defend 咗你呢一個質疑
佢個解釋似乎亦都同我之前嘅解釋相融:
Quine 係有一定嘅直覺,同知道哲學家會當邊類句子係 analytic
但佢覺我我地冇 non-circular rules 去 define the set of analytic sentences
(亦即係 G. Russell 話,Quine 唔單單係當 the set of analytic sentences 係冇任何成員,更加認為 "no good mechanism has been established which would link the expression to a suitable extension" )
我唔太理解篇文最後部分 (too brief to be understood)
我知 Gillian Russell 本身有本書專論 Truth in Virtue of Meaning
但我未睇過,所以我唔太知佢最尾個 proposal 係點
我自己對 "true in virtue of meaning" 呢個 notion 都有保留
因為 standard approach to sentential meaning 好多時用句子嘅 truth conditions 來解釋句子嘅 meaning
所以我唔肯定究竟 "true in virtue of meaning" 呢個 notion 最終可唔可以 被 vindicated
而且, 我直覺上,似乎「蘋果係蘋果」之為真,唔 depend on 現實世界係點
Jamin Asay 有篇 Truth(Making) By Convention 提議,analytic truths are truths that ontologically depend in no way whatsoever upon what exists. 你可以搵嚟睇下
不過講開又講2022-11-16 16:22:19
Thanks巴打可以同我討論咁多
俾咗我究竟quinean點defend我呢個質疑,
我都諗住讀完two dogma同一批之後,讀下quine呢本truth by convention,同巴打介紹嗰幾篇文,不過可能都要幾個月後再同你討論下