🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 4, 7:47 am, Newberry <newberr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We will utilize the following three definitions.
>
> Definition 1: A sentence is meaningful if and only if it is a picture
> of a possible state of affairs.
>
> Definition 2: A sentence is true if and only if it corresponds to an
> actual state of affairs.
>
> Definition 3: A sentence is false if its negation corresponds to an
> actual state of affairs.
>
> To further characterize possible we can say that it means imaginable.
> Ludwig Wittgenstein says something very similar. He alludes to
> imaginability a few times: If I can imagine objects combined in states
> of affairs, I cannot imagine them excluded from the possibility of
> such combinations. [TLP 2.0121], We picture facts to ourselves. [TLP
> 2.1] A picture is a model of reality. [TLP 2.12] Finally he says: A
> picture represents a possible situation in a logical space [TLP 2.202]
> But what does "possible" mean? What is thinkable is possible too. [TLP
> 3.02] So we have: A picture represents a thinkable situation in a
> logical space. What is thinkable? 'A state of affairs is thinkable':
> what this means is that we can picture it to ourselves. [TLP 3.001] So
> finally we have: A situation in a logical space is a state of affairs
> we that can picture to ourselves.  ...
>
> http://xnewberry.tripod.com/SentencesLackTruthValues.html

I should add that I am defending Strawson's theory of presuppositions.
It follows naturally from the definitions, which in turn seem natural
to me. Tractatus may be obscure but as far as "In order to tell
whether a picture is true or false we must compare it with reality..."
I think it could not be clearer. And you do not need a Ph.D. from
Cambridge university to figure that much. If somebody tells you "there
is bird on the tree in front of your window" you look out of your
window and check if there is bird on the tree in fron of it. If so,
you know the guy told you the truth.

The problem is that "the present King of France is wise" seems
meaningful to most people, but it can be neither verified nor
fasified, so it is neither true nor false It is also clear why it is
meaningfull - because it represents a possible state of affairs. So we
have a meaningful sentence, which is neither true nor false just as
Strawson argued. It is also clear why it is neither true nor false -
because the present King of France does not exist - the prsupposition
is false.

But some sentences are meaningless so you could also argue that logic
should be trivalent anyway. I am not sure why neither Wittgenstein not
the Neopositivists considered such possibility.