If the term 'proposition' is used to mean a sentence -- a string of symbols, be they spoken, written, gesticulated or whatever -- then I suppose there could be uncountably many propositions if we allow there to be propositions of infinite length. In that case, one ought to be able to diagonalise on them just as one does with the infinite decimal expansions of the real numbers. But I think it's reasonable to stipulate that we're only going to countenance finitely long sentences. After all, they wouldn't be much use in communication, if you could literally never get a sentence out. Alternatively, if the set of symbols is itself uncountable, then that will certainly lead to an uncountable infinity of strings of such symbols. But it seems reasonable to stipulate against that case too. Communication would once again be thwarted, because we don't seem to have the perceptual capacity to discriminate between uncountably many different symbols -- indeed, our discriminatory abilities probably only extend...

I guess it's justified if it works . I would say that swear words definitely do have a legitimate, and even an important, place in our wider linguistic behaviour. Used sparingly, they can do an excellent job of adding emphasis when you feel you need to give things that extra little boost. They can often convey emotion more effectively than more neutral terms would. In certain social settings, their use can help to establish a sense of informality and intimacy. And so on. And then, of course, such language also has its disadvantages. In other social settings, the use of these words might cause offence or discomfort to the audience, something which, other things being equal, is best avoided. And their use will often serve to undermine the user's communicative goals, by prejudicing the audience against the speaker in such a way that they are no longer inclined to give any heed to the point the speaker was hoping to convey. I guess the latter point is what's really at stake in the specific case you...

According to my dictionary, the word 'bachelor' means 'an unmarried man'. That's why the statement 'all bachelors are unmarried' is analytic, because the status of being unmarried is built into the meaning of 'bachelor'. Now, when I look up the word 'chair' in my dictionary, it tells me that it is 'a separate seat for one person, of various forms, usually having a back and four legs'. It doesn't define it as 'that which is red', or make any mention of colour at all. Of course, you might very well reply that this is just because it's not actually the case that all chairs are red; and that, if they were all red, the colour would in that case infiltrate the meaning of the word. But I don't buy that. Even if there was a global campaign to paint absolutely every chair in the world red, I still don't feel that the word 'chair' would thereby come to mean 'that which is red'. It would still be defined in the same old way, in terms of an object's form and function. And the reason why I say this is that it...