KacyRay

See, I would dispute that definition. In order to qualify as a proposition, it must make a statement about something. It offers information on the nature of reality of an object. If the information provided corresponds to reality, the proposition is true. If it does not, it is false. If the information provided cannot be verified, falsified, or examined... it cannot be deemed either of those. Thus, it is arbitrary.

Brant: Comment noted... just want to point out that when I use the term "disrespect" I am using it specifically to mean a failure to show due respect. For those to whom little respect is due, little respect should be shown. I don't expect anyone to talk to a street hustler the way they talk to their professor.

1. Thank you for the kind words. 2. Actually, I summed it up pretty deliberately. People deserve the respect they've earned. In cases where one doesn't know another person well enough to make an informed judgment, it is simply good manners to afford a basic presumption of respect. It's a good idea to "pay it forward", if you will. 3. Yes! Which is why it is so aggravating when other folks seem oblivious to it. Take my friend SB for example... he interprets my call for respectful conversation as some sort of demand that he restrain his conversation. What an inconvenience it must be, to restrain yourself from disrespecting people! How the hell are we supposed to have a conversation without doing that??? I'd rather have someone walk in my house and take the money out of my wallet than to have someone cut out from under my legs the basic, reasonable, modest amount of respect I've managed to earn for myself. Money is so much easier to replace, and so much less important.

I don't think having the social intelligence required to understand the value of respecting others and demonstrating that respect during social interactions amounts to "service of the other and his or her emotional needs". This subject is one near and dear to my heart, because I have learned that I grew up with so many social dysfunctions I never realized I had that today I feel so embarrassed for my past behaviors that I've developed a minor form of Tourettes syndrom. It's to the point that my wife has learned to ignore it if she hears me make a some completely unexpected grunt or "augh" sound. It happens so frequently that she no longer asks me "what's wrong" or even looks in my direction. What she doesn't know is that those are just the sounds I make when I'm around people. When I'm not around people, the swear words do come out. I've also never explained to her what the source of those gutteral sounds are. But now that I'm on a ship, it's become a real issue. I make noises and people turn around and look. This happens during briefs, while I'm at my desk, etc... It's sucks. What triggers those sounds is when a memory rushes into my mind of something I've done in the past that I can't believe I was blind, stupid, or inept enough to have done. Either that, or something someone has done to me in response to that ineptitude. And the memories don't stop. And there's an endless supply of them.` So that's the price I'm paying for it all. That's the damage done. I contain these the best I can, but it seems I can't make them stop. SB is right - we have gone around and around on this topic. I full-on disagree with any contention that disrespect is a necessary (and even normal) aspect of normal human relations. Growing up in the confines of my self-crafted safe zone, I ensured I was insulated from those healthy types who actually went out into the world and learned how to dwell among human beings. SB and I, in particular, had our own mini-culture where the surest way to demonstrate solidarity was with put-downs and taunts. As young aspiring musicians, the entirety of our original musical compositions consisted of songs taunting each other and one of our closest friends. At this point, I don't know if anything we did was genuinely funny, although we got a good laugh out of making the same jokes over and over for decades. If you were in our clique, you were guaranteed to hear one of us tell you why something about you "sucks", and equally guaranteed not to hear anything positive about yourself. (Small wonder we were never invited to parties, right?) The mentality carried over into my first marriage, where my wife and I (both members of this very exclusive subculture) saw no problem with bickering and insulting each other on a regular basis, often in full public display, oblivious to the looks of shock in the faces of others, not understanding why they would often scuttle away in embarrassment for us. 15 years ago, I joined the USMC as an enlisted guy. 4 years ago I became on officer. During that time, I've learned some pretty painful truths. I've learned how truly dysfunctional my behavior has been throughout the years. I've learned the extent of the damage done to my psychology and the fact that I may not have enough years left to fully recover. I've learned that alpha males that exist in a meritocracy do have ways of "ribbing" each other... and it's done skillfully and respectfully, without any apparent effort or difficulty, because the mutual respect is a natural, engrained aspect of the psychology. Whereas, for me, maneuvering through the day-to-day social minefield requires the full measure of my effort, attention, and application of 15 years of hard-earned education - for them it requires nothing more than waking up in the morning and being themselves. I've learned that when men who do respect themselves and expect respect from others make genuinely insulting statements, they mean them. And moreover, they expect that when others make those sorts of statements, that they mean them as well. (Hint: If you call me a bitch, you'd better expect me to believe you really think I am one, and you'd better expect one of two responses: 1) I demonstrate to you that you're wrong or 2) I forever relegate myself that role. There is no in-between, and it's not something to be glossed over. It's not ever a remark made casually to another man.) I've learned what respect is: An internalize recognition of another's demonstrated abilities and/or value. I've learned that to disrespect someone is to either fail to internally recognize their demonstrated abilities and/or value (which is bad) or to fail to demonstrate the internally recognition of that ability or value (which is worse). Of course, not everyone merits respect. I'm not suggesting everyone does. And respect exists on the very same spectrum that ability and value do. In that regard, I consider respect a form of social currency. For this reason, I consider disrespect as an act of depriving someone of a social currency that they have earned. And I think that's why disrespect invokes such a feeling of rage in alpha-males. They recognize it for what it is - it is an act of denying them social capital that they have earned (or feel they merit). It makes them every bit as angry to have their social capital taken from them as it would to have their money stolen from them. It deprives them of something they know is theirs and that they feel they've earned (whether this feeling is justified or not is a different issue - obviously some have an inflated sense of social entitlement, but those aren't the sort I'm discussing here right now). And I think that's why the subject of respect invokes such a feeling of apathetic, mystified, unintelligible sneering from those who don't understand it. After all, one who is blind to the very concept of social capital would necessarily be mystified at anyone who gets angered when it is denied to them, would they not? So yes, my eyes have been opened to this. And now that they are, it's difficult for me to accept such treatment from those who are still blind to it. Since I never have to deal with this from any of my professional peers, from any of my subordinates, from any of my seniors, from my wife, from my family, from anyone I meet in the real world... it becomes that much more difficult for me to accept it from people I associate with online. I hold that this is a healthy approach. In stark contrast to the idea that a proportionate demonstration of mutual respect is some sort of "service of someone's emotional needs", I hold that to deliberately disrespect someone is to withhold from them social capital that they have earned, and this is a transgression for which one will always pay dearly. SB regards this as being thin-skinned. To that I'd say: If you recoil at the idea of someone (a stranger, a family member, your best friend) casually walking through your living room door, walking over to your kitchen counter, taking the money out of your wallet, and walking off with a grin on their face... how much more should you recoil at the idea of someone casually stealing hard-earned social capital? Of course, money is tangible and it's theft is measurable to anyone. To understand the measure of the loss of social capital requires either natural social intelligence or a crash course in the school of hard knocks. Absent either of those, one is likely to go through life attributing their social failure to the vices of others and the general shittiness of society in general, never realizing that he or she was to blame for their own social impoverishment. I suppose I should address this question directly: To what extent should conversation be restrained in the service of the "other" and his or her emotional needs, or rather, their 'self-esteem", or "fragile ego", or "self-respect"? Answer: To the extent that one merits respect, respect should be afforded. This is not a restraint of conversation, any more than paying for your burger is a restraint of your ability to walk out the door with all your cash still in your pocket. It is earned, not a request for charity. Therefore it is expected. If you refuse to understand or acknowledge the fact that people are deserving of the respect they've earned, you will do so at your own peril.

My father has said his impression is that folks like you on ships are forbidden from drinking during the entirety of the tour. Is that true? If so, that sucks. We can't drink on the ship, but we do have port calls. But I have to tell you, I don't really miss it. I was recently on the ground for about 6 straight days. I had a beer for lunch once or twice - nothing crazy. Didn't really feel much like drinking. I did drink the complimentary bottle of wine at the hotel I was at... but only because it was there and I would've hated to let it go to waste. I did not, however, drink the complimentary bottle of champagne. Honestly... I can't think of one time since I've been on this ship that I've wished I could have a drink. Lots of folks in the Ward Room joke about how much they're going to throw back once they get on shore, but I didn't see a single officer appear to have the slightest buzz on during the entire port call. It just doesn't seem to be anything that anyone really thinks about. I know I don't. I do think about other things, however. Being on a ship does have it's downsides.

I think the screaming you hear on rollercoasters are screams of exhilaration, not fear. I think that an appreciation of chess "clicks" when you begin to realize how many life-metaphores exist within the game. I could go on and on about that realization forever (and I have in the past). It's truly a metaphor of life on an 8x8 board.

XRay - I've already explained that. The difference between a proposition and a statement of opinion has nothing to do with whether the statements are true or not. The distinction is not based on that. As I've pointed out - A proposition makes a statement about the object it names. A statement of opinion offer information on the person stating the opinion. - Green is a mixture of blue and yellow = proposition - Green is a bad color to paint your car = opinion Do you see the difference? I am not sure I can make it any more clear than I already have...

This question seems to miss the point. The point is that a proposition is a statement about the metaphysical nature of reality as opposed to a statement about the speaker. (Metaphysical meaning - existence as a whole, to include concepts, consciousness etc... and that which underlies the reality of which we are aware.) 1) You need not make that assumption about the object being discussed, because it is irrelevant. To wit: If someone says "Red is the most beautiful color".... whether red is a color that pleases anyone else to a greater degree than any other color is irrelevant to the fact that the speaker finds it to be the most pleasing color. In other words, the speaker finds it to be the most pleasing color around. Everyone else in the world may find red to be abhorrent, but that does not change the fact that the speaker finds it to be the most pleasing (or beautiful) color. Remember, "beauty" describes the relationship between an existent and an observer. When the last conscious being dies, beauty ceases to exist. It is not a property of the object being observed, no matter what Roissey says. No, beauty does not exist in nature. We find things to be beautiful. It's a response inside of us, not a property of the object. I assure you, your average spider does not recognize any difference in attractiveness between Halle Berry and Margaret Thatcher. But they sure do get turned on by other spiders. 2) "Honesty is good" is an example of the dangers of using colloquial language during discussion of intellectual issues. To peel the onion back on that... - The statement "Honesty is good" is a colloquial way of saying either "Honesty is virtuous", "Honesty is practical", or "Honesty is advantageous (to either the honest person or those who might exploit the honest person). To really be able to unpack your question, I'd have to know exactly which of these you meant. For the sake of discussion, I'll assume you meant the first. "Honesty is virtuous". - Now, I assume you're asking whether this statement is a statement of fact or opinion. In other words, you're asking me to offer a justified approach to determining whether this statement offers information on the person uttering the statement or on the object being discussed (honesty). - For the sake of brevity, I will begin by stating that I do believe in objective morals. This means that reality provides information on what actions are more likely to work to your advantage, and which actions are more likely to work to your disadvantage - regardless of how we feel about those actions. (In this context, "working to your advantage" means having life-extending, life-enhancing, or otherwise pro-mans-life results). - The statement "Honesty is good", therefore, is making a definitive proposition about the metaphysical nature of honesty. It is stating that honesty is virtuous - i.e. it yields the best results (highest chances of working to your advantage). Therefore it is a proposition, not a statement of opinion. Of course, the example was vague and I had to interpret it in order to unpack it. If we were sitting in a room together, I'd have asked several questions before undertaking that analysis, so if you would be so kind as to grant me the assumptions in my interpretation of your statement that I had to make in order to unpack it, that would help avoiding any unnecessary rabbit-holes. I had to assume the statement was a colloquial way of saying "Honesty is an objectively virtuous principle". If you meant it otherwise, I'd have to know exactly how you meant it, but my analysis method would be exactly the same. The point is in the methodology, not in the specific example. That's not true. They're statements of fact, minus an explicitly identified standard of value or comparison. The standard is merely implied. The concept "hot," for example, always refers to a temperature relative to another. Would you therefore say that the concept of heat is always a subjective opinion? All of your propositions above are objectively measurable against implied (but unstated) standards. We can measure how hot or distant something is compared to specified temperature or distance, we can test people's levels of knowledge of certain subjects and compare them to their success at solving crossword puzzles, or at out-debating and out-thinking "Piekoff" (and at spelling his name correctly ;-)). We cannot do the same with matters of taste and sentiment. There are no identifiable, objective, repeatable standards by which to measure beauty or color preferences. Look at it this way: If you set the standard of distance by saying that anything beyond 100 meters is far, I can know whether any specific distance is near or far. We can't do the same with beauty and colors if you attempt to set the standard by identifying red as the most beautiful color. Similarity or dissimilarity to red doesn't necessarily make a color more beautiful or more ugly. You might identify a hue that complements red as the second-best color. There's no possible way to establish an objective standard which reflects your tastes and sentiments. J Hold on now... I never said they weren't factual statements. I said that they were not propositions. In other words, they provide no information on the object being discussed. "It's hot in here", at best, factually informs the listener that the speaker finds the local ambient temperature to be uncomfortably high. This is ostensibly true - in fact, my wife and I go around and around about the temperature on a routine basis. I've known her to complain that "it's too hot" during 60 degree weather, and the very next week tell me "it's too cold" when it was 75 degrees in the house. Her assessment isn't even internally consistent - how then can you claim that the statement "it's hot" says anything at all about the temperature? It's a meaningless statement, apart from the fact that it tells you how the speaker feels. I can tell you that what we feel as "cold" would probably strike your average penguin as very curious. (Remember, the statement is "It's cold in here", not "It's colder in here than in locations with a higher temperature") "All of your propositions above are objectively measurable against implied (but unstated) standards." Without going through every single example, I'll demonstrate your error on this one: "The test question was easy" Can your justify the idea that any of the following test questions are objectively more difficult than the others: a - What is 30+50? b - What is 40+40? c - What is the capital of Cyprus? d - What is the capital of Alabama? It almost goes without saying, but I will point out that any test question is easy to those who knows the answer. Conversely, any test question is difficult to those who do not know the answer. It is clear that the ease or difficulty of the test question lies entirely within the psychology of the person being tested. A 5 year old child living in Cyprus can probably answer c but would find d rather difficult. Your average Alabama resident would probably find it quite surprising that there is a country named Cyprus. Neither could probably answer questions a or b. Therefore the statement "This test question is easy" clearly provides information about the person making the statement, and none about the test question (the object being discussed). It tells you (factually, even!) that the person speaking either knew the answer or knew how to figure it out without much difficulty. It says absolutely nothing about the question itself. It is a statement of opinion, not a proposition (It provides information about the speaker, not about the metaphysical nature of the test question). "Look at it this way: If you set the standard of distance by saying that anything beyond 100 meters is far, I can know whether any specific distance is near or far." You're inserting aspects into my formulation that change the nature of the propositions. If you start assigning arbitrary definitions to words, then you have changed the nature of those words. Therefore, you change the way in which those words are being used. Therefore, you change the nature of the statement being made. (For example, to agree that 100 meters is "far" is to arbitrarily redefine it). You're right, if we all agree to define the term far as "anything more distant than 100 meters", then yes, you are correct. But you've changed the entire equation by doing this, therefore my formulation doesn't apply. So you're right, but you're not arguing my formulation, you're arguing against a straw man of your own creation. I assure you, the statement "The ball is far away" tells you nothing about the distance of the ball from the speaker. It tells you no information about the distance of the ball at all, other than the fact that the speaker finds it to be very distant. Again, I don't have time to break down every example, but breaking down one example should suffice to demonstrate that the same epistemological methodology applies to all the examples I've provided.

Yes... you are correct. The quote is from Jonathan. My apologies... that was a technical error, not a deliberate mis-citation. I will attempt to fix it.

Serrabis Bey... why yoo think everyone here is a stoopids? I don dum dum down the thing what I say... I am smart guy.

"It's hot in here" "That's far away" "This is hard work" "This crossword puzzle is difficult" "The test question was easy" "Trigonometry is incomprehensible" "Piekoff is an idiot" All statements of opinion. All of them provide information on the individual making the statement rather than the object being discussed. None of them involve aesthetics. I suppose you could argue the aesthetic value of trigonometry and crossword puzzles, but the statements above describe evaluations of their technical complexity, not about their pleasure-value, so even if you made a case that those pursuits are enjoyable, the statements above don't address that aspect so they still qualify as counter-examples.

That's generally a good tack to take, but the specific example that you chose will not work with certain Objectivists. They would see the second proposition as false only because it identifies the wrong color as being the most beautiful. Their argument would be that it is an objective fact of reality, and not a mere "statement of opinion," that blue-green, rather than red, is the most beautiful color. J If you're kidding... good one. If not, then it's a sad day for Objectivism.

I've heard Tool called "The scariest band ever", and I think it's for good reason. Whether you like this song or hate it, if you read the lyrics and listen to the authenticity with which Maynard sings them, and if you have one ounce of blood pumping through your brain, you will not able to escape asking yourself some hard questions. Don't look at me like I am a monster Frown out your one face But with the other Stare like a junkie And I've found that a lot of their songs invoke the same genuine introspection. I almost consider Tool more of a messenger than a rock band - a messenger whose method of choice for delivering their sermon is music. I think of Bill Hicks the same way, except that he used comedy. Tool has almost nothing in common with the archetypal "rock band" except that they play the same instruments. And that's why they're scary. Their music only serves as the canvas onto which their message is painted. You asked "malevolent, mystical, etc.." ... I think the very question betrays the reality that most everyone interprets such sensory input through their lens of choice. But what Tool does, in my view, is to pull away the lens and show a picture reality in all of its raw beauty, horror, and indifference to our interests. This stripping away of the lens is what I believe Hicks (and then Maynard) referred to as prying open the "Third Eye" - the eye that has no lens and sees things as they are. To see things that way is scary, and not everyone can handle that. To point out that we all recoil at the horror of death while consistently slowing down our cars to be sure we get a good look at it is a brutal way to confront people with their true nature. But for those who are not afraid of that confrontation, Tool is a refreshing break from the puerile garbage that is the current state of popular music.

For situations like these, I find it useful to draw principles using clear examples, and then use those principles to sort out the not-so-clear examples. The fundamental difference between a proposed fact-statement and a statement of opinion is that, when it comes down to it, the former provides information about the *object* being discussed, whereas the latter provides information about the *subject* who is discussing the object. For the sake of discussion, I propose that: 1) You are a human being = A statement about the metaphysical nature of reality 2) Red is the most beautiful color = A statement of opinion. In example one, the sentence uttered tells the listener something about the object I'm discussing (you), and nothing about the subject discussing it (me). In example two, the sentence uttered tells the listener nothing about the object I'm discussing (red), and something about the subject discussing it (me). To reel it back to your original question, when you say "Rush is good", that really tells me nothing about Rush per se. Rather, it only tells me something about you (the fact that you value Rush). If you doubt this, ask yourself if you've ever been told that a movie was really good, only to watch it and then wish you could have those two hours of your life back again. (Goddamn "Transformers"... I'll never forget the sonofabitch who recommended that to me). So, no... it's not begging the question at all. The line between a proposition and an opinion statement is neither unclear nor arbitrary. There is a specific delineation to be made, and a principle to be drawn from it. If this does not satisfy your curiosity let me know, and I'll start peeling back the onion on statements such as "independence is a virtue". But given the information I've provided, I think you should be able to start Figuring It Out Ray.

I'm assuming he meant it as a judgment of aesthetic value.

That's not a proposition. It's a statement of opinion. A proposition is a statement about reality - as in, the metaphysical nature of reality. An opinion is a statement of value judgment, or simply judgment. (And before you go asking "Isn't it a reality that Rush is good?", the answer to that is that the only reality contained in that statement is that Rush, in your judgment, is good.) Instructive question, though. It is important to remember that my formulation applies specifically to propositions, not just any ol' statement.

What is OO?

tmj - I think this subject might merit its own thread but... I personally think the word "logic" is one of the most misused and misunderstood concepts among junior-varsity intellectuals. I am of the firm opinion that Star Trek's Mr. Spock character went a long way in destroying people's understanding of what logic is. He was a cultural icon, and his most frequent catch phrase was "that's illogical" or something to that affect. He used the word "logical" as a synonym for "sensible" or "reasonable" or "true", and I have heard countless people use it that way as well. It's unfortunate, because as much as I like the original Trek, his misuse of the term "logic" spoiled the ability to understand the word for at least a couple generations. Logic is, put simply, an "if/then" statement. The IF is the premise and the THEN is the conclusion. I'm no expert on logical theory, but I do know that logic can be applied to math, reason, science, and many other pursuits where non-contradictory identifications are sought. If x = 1 then 10x = 10. That's a mathematical statement that applies logic. If the word "atheist" is defined as "one who does not have a belief in a god", and you do not have a belief in a god, then you are an atheist. This is a statement of reason that applies logic. If all dogs breathe air and this newly discovered animal does not breathe air, then this newly discovered animal is not a dog. A statement of science that applies logic. Those are logical statements. Whether they are true or not is irrelevant - they are still statements of logic. So I would say that logic is best understood as a process of non-contradictory identification (to borrow a textbook Objectivist formulation). Like I said... we can start a new thread on this if you like.

Thanks Brant. Good to see I'm not off my rocker on this one. I think it is just a simple matter of applying basic principles of reason and science methodology to the realm of basic propositions.

Michael, Thanks for the up-vote, and I do acknowledge that my 1 = x formulation might need some amplifying remarks. That equation is used to demonstrate, in its rawest and purest form, the arbitrary nature of a proposition which employs undefined or non-specific terms. In other words - so long as x remains undefined, there is no Truth Value (TV) to the equation. It cannot be called true or false. Now... could TV be rendered if sufficient information were added to the equation? Certainly - but that applies to all arbitrary assertions. This is logically implied by the formulation I've indicted - that a statement, in order to have TV, must be Verifiable, Falsifiable, and Subject to Examination (VF&SE). Therefore if you take any arbitrary proposition and insert information that renders the proposition VF&SE, you've provided the TV. In fact... I'd be quite surprised to hear a mathematician claim that the proposition 1 = x is false. Or true. He would probably say it was undetermined and in need of more information in order to be either true or false. Such is the nature of arbitrary propositions.

Okay, so it's not a doctrine as much as a basic sketch, but I'd like to present it for critique. This stems from the discussion about Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary assertion. There has been lengthy discussion of it and as best as i can tell, it has been rightly rejected by the majority of the folks on this forum. However, the fact that Peikoff's doctrine has fatal flaws doesn't mean that there's no such thing as a truly arbitrary assertion. It doesn't mean that there is no relevant distinction between the false and the arbitrary. And it doesn't mean that distinguishing between the two is not an important cognitive function. My contention is that: - Any proposition about the nature of reality will fit into one of two broad categories: Those which have truth value and those which don't. - Those which do may have a truth value of true or false. (Whether or not that value is as-of-yet determined is irrelevant, so long as it is determinable). - Those which do not are arbitrary, and the only proper way to handle such statements is to reject them out-of-hand. Also: - There are specific features a proposition must possess in order to have truth value. It must be, at a minimum, verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. - The burden of truth-value-demonstration falls on the person making the proposition. No one is obliged to rack their brains to determine whether a proposition has truth value. For now, these are the only points I am arguing for. I also contend that an understanding of the principles listed above is a vital component of polemic discourse, as the deliberation of arbitrary propositions only serves to credit them with value and merit that they do not possess. As examples, I present the following PROPOSITIONS: 1) 1 = 1 ----> True 2) 1 = 2 ----> false 3) 1 = x ----> arbitrary 1) I am a human being = true 2) I am a horse = false 3) I am a deity whose true identity may be known only to the gods = arbitrary 4) I have cancer = Undetermined, but possessing truth value 1) The rapture did not happen yesterday = true 2) The rapture happened yesterday = false 3) The rapture will happen soon, and by "soon", I mean "soon in heavenly terms", because to god a day is as a million years = arbitrary 4) The rapture will happen tomorrow = Undetermined, but possessing truth value. The propositions numbered 1 and 2 are verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. They therefore have a truth value of either true or false. The propositions numbered 3 are not. They have no truth value whatever. The truth value of the propositions numbered 4 are undetermined, but they still has truth value because they meet the criteria I've identified. They are verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. Sensing that the general tone of the forum seems to be against the idea that there is such a thing as a truly arbitrary proposition, and that the general sentiment stems from an unfortunate, self-serving essay on the arbitrary assertion by Dr. Peikoff, I am interested to hear what everyone thinks about my own formulation, without reference to anything purported by Dr. Peikoff.

So, after I carefully lay out an argument for why arbitrary and false are two different things, you feel no need to demonstrate the problems with it or present one of your own. You simply dismiss it with "Eh, no they aren't". Good to go. Which would be important to point out if we were discussing reason or the use of logic. But we're not. We're discussion propositions. I'm well aware of how logic and reason work. But we're not talking about either of those topics. We can if you want to, in another thread... but can we just talk about propositions in this thread? Noted. But I really wish you'd at least provide an argument for your position. I brought this up in order to process it through the minds of others and see how it comes out... not to have it dismissed out of hand. If the subject doesn't interest you, that's fine. Just say so. I'll wait until someone else comments on it. But I think I've put up some solid points worth at least considering.

Okay... we all understand that a proposition and a logical statement are two different things, right? Right? And we all know that I'm not the guy who started with the algebra equations, right? We do, right? "I'll leave you to the discussion you want, Kacy, and I won't try to explain how I think you did something that you disclaim doing." What I want - which I stated very clearly - is for anyone who believes that there is no distinction between an arbitrary proposition and a false one to rebut the formulations I've provided on why they are two different things. That's called "having a conversation" and it's actually quite an appropriate thing to do around these here parts. "The big question in a logical proposition is whether the premises are going to justify where correct logic takes them because it may take them to the garbage dump, not any illogic along the way." Propositions are not logical statements. You seem to be confused about this. A proposition is a statement about reality. A logical statement is one that has one or more premises that lead to a conclusion. It normally takes an "if/then" form. I'm not talking about logic. I'm talking about propositions. I thought for sure I had articulated this clearly enough. What seems to be the rub here?

Gents, I'd like to make a modest request. I was hoping someone could address the formulation I've proposed and either concur or offer arguments against. I don't know why we're talking about 6+x=7. Not sure why premises I never posited are being injected into my own formulation. My contention is that: - Any proposition about the nature of reality will fit into one of two broad categories: Those which have truth value and those which don't. - Those which do may have a truth value of true or false. (Whether or not that value is as-of-yet determined is irrelevant, so long as it is determinable). - Those which do not are arbitrary, and the only proper way to handle such statements is to reject them out-of-hand. Also: - There are specific features a proposition must possess in order to have truth value. It must be, at a minimum, verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. For now, these are the only points I am arguing for. I also contend that an understanding of the principles listed above is a vital component of polemic discourse, as the deliberation of arbitrary propositions only serves to credit them with value and merit that they do not possess. I have also already repudiated Peikoff's doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, insofar as I understand it to be defined as "an emotional claim that is devoid of evidence" (paraphrased).I find this definition or characterization to be inaccurate and useless. By way of analogy, I presented the following PROPOSITIONS: 1 = 1 is true 1 = 2 is false 1 = x is arbitrary I did not offer these up in order to discuss algebra. I offer them up as mathematical analogies to logical statements. If you are having trouble accepting a mathematical analogy, here are some concrete examples: 1) I am a human being = true 2) I am a horse = false 3) I am a deity whose true identity may be known only to the gods = arbitrary Here's another example: 1) The rapture did not happen yesterday = true 2) The rapture happened yesterday = false 3) The rapture will happen soon, and by "soon", I mean "soon in heavenly terms", because to god a day is as a million years = arbitrary Do you see the difference between statements numbered 1 and 2 and those numbered 3? Statements 1 and 2 are verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. The statements numbered 3 are not. Bonus example: 4) The rapture will happen tomorrow = Undetermined, but with truth value. Statement #4's truth value is undetermined, but it still has truth value because it meets the criteria I've identified. It is verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. Now... if, after I've explained all this, you still think that there is no essential difference between a false statement and an arbitrary one, I think at this point it's on you to show me the holes in my formulation. That's why we discuss epistemology, right?

Brant, A thought experiment is not a proposition (a statement about the nature of reality). It's a thought experiment, and I'm specifically discussing propositions. Are you arguing against Peikoff's doctrine? Or my formulation? If you're arguing against mine, it sounds to me like you are contending that all propositions have truth value. I'm interested to hear how you can justify that when I've demonstrated that some have none at all. Do you have an argument? I hear you, that you don't agree, and that's well and good. But I'm wondering if you have an argument against my formulation. - Do you believe that all propositions have "truth value"? - If so, how can you justify this in light of the examples I've provided? Can you demonstrate the truth value in Russels Teapot example, or in the proposition 1 = x? - If not, how would you classify those that do not?