''Not really'' means.. ''What do you mean'' ? ''This make no sense'',
etc. are obviously about ''meaning''. Not about ''truth or falsity''.
We need to first understand statement made to be able to react.
There was in the past so called ''theory of meaning'' next to
''theory of reference'' or ''referential theory'' which won the contest.
Aka ''ýour physical theory of truth'' . But Frege's work ''About
Sense and Reference'' included obviously both and is still the
most important work in phylosophy of language. We agreed on
the fact (?) that ''value statements'' are not ''thruth functionall'' .
Aka the question of ''truth and falsity'' don't apply to them.
This is also implicit in the quoted Roman saying. However logic
apply to all kinds of sentences because contradictory sentences,
say, ''make no sense'' in the sense of consistency. We can't grasp
what is ''really meant'' by contradictory statements. That is why
people ask ''what do you (really) mean''. With your
''physical approach'' you can't answer such questions. There are different and contradictory statement made about the same
physical object ; the headshell in casu. Well the question
than is how the same object can ''have'' and ''not have'' the
same proporties?
BTW this is the usual outcome in our discussions so it is not
clear why you participate in them?
,
etc. are obviously about ''meaning''. Not about ''truth or falsity''.
We need to first understand statement made to be able to react.
There was in the past so called ''theory of meaning'' next to
''theory of reference'' or ''referential theory'' which won the contest.
Aka ''ýour physical theory of truth'' . But Frege's work ''About
Sense and Reference'' included obviously both and is still the
most important work in phylosophy of language. We agreed on
the fact (?) that ''value statements'' are not ''thruth functionall'' .
Aka the question of ''truth and falsity'' don't apply to them.
This is also implicit in the quoted Roman saying. However logic
apply to all kinds of sentences because contradictory sentences,
say, ''make no sense'' in the sense of consistency. We can't grasp
what is ''really meant'' by contradictory statements. That is why
people ask ''what do you (really) mean''. With your
''physical approach'' you can't answer such questions. There are different and contradictory statement made about the same
physical object ; the headshell in casu. Well the question
than is how the same object can ''have'' and ''not have'' the
same proporties?
BTW this is the usual outcome in our discussions so it is not
clear why you participate in them?
,