inclusion
[WORK IN PROGRESS]
NOTE: Sounds like Ross is saying that Meaning Inclusion is just a synonym of Analytic! What’s the difference (if any)? Do you know, dear reader? Tell me and I’ll add your comment to the glossary.
T&W: Sometimes we count a statement true because of meaning inclusions: “If I were invisible, you couldn’t see me.” This is one of many puzzling examples Ross offers, because by the standard of truth Ross advocates, you cannot truth to propositions that are completely “unanchored”, i.e. unmoored from real things. References to my “invisible self” are vacuous. Yet here he apparently wants to make the point that if we set aside the strictness of the standard and focus entirely on the implication, it would be true. Characteristically of Ross, however, you could find an example almost identical to this one 3 pages later that he adduces as a case that is vacuous and therefore cannot have any truth value. Perhaps if he said “If A were visible, you couldn’t see A.” But the minute he grounds the subject (the real person “I”), it becomes unclear (to me) whether this statement can have a truth value or not.