The Difference Between a Truth-Bearer and a Truth-Maker

Frege makes the point that the being of a proposition cannot be identical to its being true.  This I find obvious.  There are true propositions and there are false propositions.  Therefore, for propositions (the senses of context-free declarative sentences) it cannot be the case that to be = to be true.  Furthermore, a given proposition that is contingently true is possibly such as not to be true, whence it follows that its being and its being true cannot be identical.  (Whether Frege does or would give the second argument, I don't know; but I think it is correct.)

As Frege puts its, "The being of a thought [Gedanke, proposition] thus does not consist in its being true." (Near the beginning of his essay, "Negation.")  One can grasp a proposition without knowing whether or not it is true. To grasp a proposition is not to accept it as true, to reject it as false, or to suspend judgment as to its truth-value.  To grasp a proposition is merely to have it before one's mind, to understand it.  A Fregean proposition is a sense, and no such propositional sense has as part of its sense its being true.  That's Frege's point and it strikes me as rock-solid.

Our London sparring-partner Ed now demonstrates that he still does not understand what a truth-maker is:

I wonder if a ‘truthmaker’ as understood by the advocates of truthmaking is the same sort of thing as Frege’s marvelous but impossible thought. Something that if we perceived it for what it was, would simultaneously communicate to us the truth of what it includes.

Ed is obviously confusing truth-bearers such as Fregean propositions with truth-makers.  Truth-bearers are representations; truth-makers are not.  That's one difference.  Truth-bearers are either true or false; truth-makers are not since, not being representations,  they cannot be said to be true, nor can they be said to be false.  That's a second difference.  Truth-bearers are 'bipolar,' either true or false; truth-makers are 'unipolar':  all of them obtain.  That's a third difference.  Truth-bearers are such that their being or existence does not entail their being true; truth-makers are such that their being or existence does entail their obtaining.  I am assuming that truth-makers are facts.  If a fact obtains then it exists; there are no non-obtaining facts.  That's a fourth difference.

There is no point in criticizing a doctrine one misrepresents.  First represent it fairly, then lodge objections.  And as I have said, there are reasonable objections one can bring.

So far Ed has not lodged one clear objection. 

Comments

[Edward Ockham]

Please note I used careful wording. I said 'I wonder' - so I am pondering. And I wondered whether a truthmaker was the same *sort* of thing etc.

But as you rightly say, I do not understand what a truthmaker is. I plan some further posts on this at the weekend.

Best.

[Account Deleted]

On Philosophical "Trash-Talk",

In philosophical discourse the phrase "I do not understand" when stated about a philosophical position can mean either

(i) this position is so obscure that there is nothing in it to understand; or

(ii) this position is subject to several obvious objections (which I need not spell out) and therefore I fail to see how anyone can hold and/or propose it; or

(iii) this position is so difficult, abstract, and/or complex that I am unable to wrap my head around it.

Sense (iii) is not philosophical trash-talk. It is typically stated by a philosophical novice who really does not yet grasp the nature of philosophical positions or by a professional who is grappling with a genuinely difficult position and attempts to make sense of it.

Senses (i) and (ii), on the other hand, are too often used by opponents of a position as philosophical trash-talk. Their purpose is to intimidate the proponents of a position. The method goes something like this.

Example of Philosophical Trash-Talk:

"You and I agree that I am not a philosophical novice; given this assumption, if your position were not irreparably obscure, I would understand it; I do not understand it; therefore, it is irreparably obscure."

Now the proponent of the position so challenged has two options: he can defend the coherence of his position or else he must challenge the credentials of the opponent who uses a version of trash-talk exemplified above. Since many gentle souls would prefer not to opt for the later option, they are forced to defend the coherence of their position against challenges not yet stated. This achieves the intended purpose of the opponent to turn the burden on the proponent without having to do much except trash-talk.

Trash-talk has no place in philosophical discourse. A phrase such as "I do not understand" should be used only in sense (iii) either by a philosophical novice or by a professional who uses it to express their genuine effort to understand a difficult position and give it the most charitable reading. If a professional uses it in any other sense, they are trash-talking which, I hope we all agree, betrays the essence of philosophical inquiry.

[Bill Vallicella]

Couldn't agree more, Peter. But in defense of Ed, his "I do not understand what a truthmaker is" is not unambiguously subject to your censure. The ambiguity is part of the 'charm' of his comment.