[lbo-talk] The Ontology of Two Chairs (was Reich on sex & religion)

ravi gadfly at exitleft.org
Tue Jan 4 17:00:50 PST 2005


Jon Johanning wrote:
> On Dec 30, 2004, at 11:48 PM, joanna bujes wrote:
>
>> It's hard to know what you mean by "truths of mathematics." If these
>> truths include the entities that we call numbers and that we claim to
>> be able to manipulateby analogy with how we manipulate-numbers-as
>> finite-quantities, then certainly these truths are culturally given.
>
>
> What I mean is this: is "2+2=4" true or false? If it is true, is it a
> "culturally-given truth"? If you can find a way to make it false, show
> it to me.
>
> You see, I'm a terribly simple-minded philosopher in the end.
>

in the vein of simple-minded philosophy ;-), i have a very simple question:

what is the meaning of "true" in the statement "2+2=4 is true"? is it this: in the first order theory of formalized elementary arithmetic, the result 2+2=4 (or for that matter, kant's 7+5=12) can be logically deduced (recursively axiomatized)?

isnt that quite a different kind of "truth" (a "synthetic truth", in simple-minded philosophy? ;-)), than "there are two chairs in this room"?

how about euclid's fifth axiom? is that "true"? in what sense?

does the difference matter? perhaps not? one could say: both are true: one because of the very definition of the terms (or at least an extension) while the other for commonsense or other reasons... sensory experience confirms the claim, given agreement on terms and a clear correspondence between the terms and sensory data...

but aren't we already on slippery (if well-trodden) ground here? isn't there a bootstrapping problem with the issue of agreement, including on the representation of sensory data?

--ravi

p.s: while answers are available to some of these questions elsewhere, i thought it would be fruitful to *recast* as much light as possible on this debate.



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list