(December 4, 2013 at 12:36 am)Rational AKD Wrote: when talking about reality it refers to what the world has, not the world itself. a world has no properties if it contains nothing so it's not fair to suggest it is contingent on a world. a world wouldn't be a world if nothing existed in it.
Talking about what the world has is talking about the world itself. Existing within the real world automatically makes it continent on reality.
(December 4, 2013 at 12:36 am)Rational AKD Wrote: really? give an example of a proposition contingent on a non-proposition.
The proposition "Obama is president of US" is contingent upon the fact of whether or not at a given time, Obama is the president - the latter being a concrete event would be a non-proposition.
(December 4, 2013 at 12:36 am)Rational AKD Wrote: a proposition can't be contingent upon a non-proposition. the only examples given by Stanford of non-propositions are thought and word utterance. so what does this mean? mind and communication can't be subject to true and false. so the mind must exist because we think and communication must exist because we communicate. great... how does that help you?
Did you miss the other part about concrete events? Try reading it through the next time.
(December 4, 2013 at 12:36 am)Rational AKD Wrote: no need. I already know the difference between conceived truth and actual truth, as you should. do you ever hear someone say "the truth was this but not it has changed"? of course not. they always say "I thought this was the truth but I was wrong." the act of deception has no effect on actual truth.
Actually, I hear it all the time - "The truth was this but now it has changed". This indicates that the truth of a statement is contingent upon the facts of reality and as the facts change, so does the truth.
