Recently I've found out you wrote a book about truthmaking and theories of truth, so what about a (or some?) video on theories of truth, maybe with some insights on how truthmaker semantics can help in defining truth? My main interests in philosophy are philosophy of mind and metaethics and I'm more and more realizing how useful semantic theories are in these fields. PS: In this video all of your passion for philosophy comes out. I'm sure you've managed to transmit it to whoever watched it.
I like Fine's epistemic heuristics in the so-called "Finean Cluster". Admirably elucidated. IEP states it as follows: The Finean cluster may be roughly summarized by the following methodological “directives”: Provide a rigorous account of the appearances first before trying to discern the reality underlying them. Focus on the phenomenon itself and not just how we represent or express it in language or thought. Respect what’s at issue by not allowing worries about what we can mean from preventing us from accepting the intelligibility of notions that strike us as intelligible. Be patient with the messy details even when they resist tidying or systematization. Don’t allow epistemic worries about how we know what we seem to know interfere with or distract us from clarifying what it is that we seem to know. I employ them myself, and I recall working out each of these somewhere in my giant pile of notes somewhere. And I think that they are intuitively clear and that saner minds tend to stick to most if not all of these with greater or lesser intellectual virtue, so it is not really a surprise, either. He elucidated them about 4 years before I was born, but... he was born long before I was, so that's not a surprise either. I get the sense that it has a great deal to do with Aristotle's worthy influence, because if anyone exhibited these parameters of thinking process it would be he. Quite an interesting domain of considerations, to consider how we think, and something about how we do so "in virtue of" implicit epistemic heuristics that aren't strictly contained formally in the thought process itself, but are implicit in its existential conduct.
Video is great, but I think it'd better to put philosophical applications before the technical stuff. It would be easier to understand TM semantics having in mind these more familiar things, where it can be used
Thanks for all your effort! Your videos are appreciated! In general, I am interested in problems that philosophical positions are faced with. It is great to learn about truthmaker semantics, but what are some issues that are discussed right now? what are some of the critiques it is facing?
Since it's such a new area, most of the issues involve expanding the approach beyond basic propositional logic, to quantifiers, modalities, conditionals, and so on. Plus finding more cases (eg in linguistics) where it improves on existing approaches. It's quite a complicated approach, so I suppose the objection would be that the benefits found so far don't justify the added complexity.
@@AtticPhilosophy Thanks for the reply. In general, as content, it could be nice to know about the problems that philosophical theories face, not only truthmaker semantics :)
Yes - at least, it's possible to relate them. The ground of something is (roughly) the reason it exists & is the way it is. The truthmaker for a proposition is the reason it's true. So you can think of a truthmaker as a ground of truth.
Recently I've found out you wrote a book about truthmaking and theories of truth, so what about a (or some?) video on theories of truth, maybe with some insights on how truthmaker semantics can help in defining truth? My main interests in philosophy are philosophy of mind and metaethics and I'm more and more realizing how useful semantic theories are in these fields.
PS: In this video all of your passion for philosophy comes out. I'm sure you've managed to transmit it to whoever watched it.
Enterprise, beam me up.
I like Fine's epistemic heuristics in the so-called "Finean Cluster". Admirably elucidated.
IEP states it as follows:
The Finean cluster may be roughly summarized by the following methodological “directives”:
Provide a rigorous account of the appearances first before trying to discern the reality underlying them.
Focus on the phenomenon itself and not just how we represent or express it in language or thought.
Respect what’s at issue by not allowing worries about what we can mean from preventing us from accepting the intelligibility of notions that strike us as intelligible.
Be patient with the messy details even when they resist tidying or systematization.
Don’t allow epistemic worries about how we know what we seem to know interfere with or distract us from clarifying what it is that we seem to know.
I employ them myself, and I recall working out each of these somewhere in my giant pile of notes somewhere. And I think that they are intuitively clear and that saner minds tend to stick to most if not all of these with greater or lesser intellectual virtue, so it is not really a surprise, either. He elucidated them about 4 years before I was born, but... he was born long before I was, so that's not a surprise either. I get the sense that it has a great deal to do with Aristotle's worthy influence, because if anyone exhibited these parameters of thinking process it would be he. Quite an interesting domain of considerations, to consider how we think, and something about how we do so "in virtue of" implicit epistemic heuristics that aren't strictly contained formally in the thought process itself, but are implicit in its existential conduct.
This is super interesting!! I really appreciate you going into more details in this video!!!
LET’S GOOOOOOOOOOOO
Video is great, but I think it'd better to put philosophical applications before the technical stuff. It would be easier to understand TM semantics having in mind these more familiar things, where it can be used
Thanks for all your effort! Your videos are appreciated! In general, I am interested in problems that philosophical positions are faced with. It is great to learn about truthmaker semantics, but what are some issues that are discussed right now? what are some of the critiques it is facing?
Since it's such a new area, most of the issues involve expanding the approach beyond basic propositional logic, to quantifiers, modalities, conditionals, and so on. Plus finding more cases (eg in linguistics) where it improves on existing approaches. It's quite a complicated approach, so I suppose the objection would be that the benefits found so far don't justify the added complexity.
@@AtticPhilosophy Thanks for the reply. In general, as content, it could be nice to know about the problems that philosophical theories face, not only truthmaker semantics :)
Are truthmakers related to "grounding"?, a term i keep hearing on philosophy twitter.
Yes - at least, it's possible to relate them. The ground of something is (roughly) the reason it exists & is the way it is. The truthmaker for a proposition is the reason it's true. So you can think of a truthmaker as a ground of truth.