C Armstrong Ap Essay
Armstrong’s primary goal of this passage is to show the ways in which "p & ~ Bsp” and "p & Bs ~p”cause the audience to see them as paradoxical. Through his theory of meaning and communication Armstrong indicates the differences between these two cases.
Armstrong’s theory of communication states that when a proposition is uttered the audience “A” infers that it is the speaker’s objective that “A” believes that the speaker believes the speaker’s proposition. In order for “A” to unravel the meaning behind the proposition, “A” must infer whether or not the speaker is sincere and reliable. Sincerity must first be granted in order for reliability to follow. If “A” finds the speaker sincere, then “A” believes that the speaker believes the proposition. …show more content…
“the sky is blue”) “&” or simply the word and, “ ~” where the tilde indicates that it is not the case that, the speaker believes or “Bs”, that “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”). Without notation this is the sky is blue and it is not the case the speaker believes the sky is blue. The second case “p & Bs ~p” is “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”) “&” and “Bs” the speaker believes “~” it is not the case that “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”). Or in short, the sky is blue and the speaker believes that it is not the case the sky is blue. The fundamental difference in these two cases is the placement of the “~”, which inherently changes the meaning and extremity of the …show more content…
Bs ( p & ~ Bsp) is labeled Proposition 2 and once applied to the original proposition, Proposition 1, or p & ~ Bsp, the outcome is “Bsp & Bs ~ Bsp”. “ 2a” in Proposition 2 is noted as “Bsp” and “2b” is “Bs~Bsp”. This shows that the speaker believes that the sky is blue and the speaker believes that it is not the case the speaker believes that the sky is blue. When reliability is inferred it strips the first “Bs” that was applied in Proposition 2 and creates Proposition 3, where 3a and 3b are “p & ~ Bsp”. Therefore 2a’ which is “Bsp” and 3b’ which is ~”Bsp” directly contradict each other. Armstrong states that in in order to believe something to be wholistically true and reliable, one must also believe each conjunct or part that makes the proposition whole. Under this case a rational audience cannot see the speaker as reliable because “Bsp” ~ “Bsp” directly contradict and the speaker believing the sky is blue and simultaneously it not being the case the speaker believes the sky is blue is not rational to either the speaker or the
Armstrong’s theory of communication states that when a proposition is uttered the audience “A” infers that it is the speaker’s objective that “A” believes that the speaker believes the speaker’s proposition. In order for “A” to unravel the meaning behind the proposition, “A” must infer whether or not the speaker is sincere and reliable. Sincerity must first be granted in order for reliability to follow. If “A” finds the speaker sincere, then “A” believes that the speaker believes the proposition. …show more content…
“the sky is blue”) “&” or simply the word and, “ ~” where the tilde indicates that it is not the case that, the speaker believes or “Bs”, that “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”). Without notation this is the sky is blue and it is not the case the speaker believes the sky is blue. The second case “p & Bs ~p” is “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”) “&” and “Bs” the speaker believes “~” it is not the case that “p” proposition (“the sky is blue”). Or in short, the sky is blue and the speaker believes that it is not the case the sky is blue. The fundamental difference in these two cases is the placement of the “~”, which inherently changes the meaning and extremity of the …show more content…
Bs ( p & ~ Bsp) is labeled Proposition 2 and once applied to the original proposition, Proposition 1, or p & ~ Bsp, the outcome is “Bsp & Bs ~ Bsp”. “ 2a” in Proposition 2 is noted as “Bsp” and “2b” is “Bs~Bsp”. This shows that the speaker believes that the sky is blue and the speaker believes that it is not the case the speaker believes that the sky is blue. When reliability is inferred it strips the first “Bs” that was applied in Proposition 2 and creates Proposition 3, where 3a and 3b are “p & ~ Bsp”. Therefore 2a’ which is “Bsp” and 3b’ which is ~”Bsp” directly contradict each other. Armstrong states that in in order to believe something to be wholistically true and reliable, one must also believe each conjunct or part that makes the proposition whole. Under this case a rational audience cannot see the speaker as reliable because “Bsp” ~ “Bsp” directly contradict and the speaker believing the sky is blue and simultaneously it not being the case the speaker believes the sky is blue is not rational to either the speaker or the