You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Leontiskos

Comments

's post anticipates this objection if you continue reading the quotes in sequential order, eventually arriving at: - If we want to depart from Quine t...
January 24, 2025 at 22:27
Although I have only skimmed it, I think Klima's, "St. Anselm's Proof," (formal citation) (original chapter) would be an excellent paper for a reading...
January 24, 2025 at 19:16
This is a key point in my opinion. If a logical system is to be able to accommodate various different ontologies, which can then be compared to one an...
January 24, 2025 at 18:47
Why do you think that?
January 24, 2025 at 18:09
Good question. Only paraphrases of Quine have been offered, based on the gavagai example (which Quine himself claims is not the ground of his doctrine...
January 24, 2025 at 07:38
I want to preempt an objection that I find quite tired, and it is related to the pre-critical story I told above. Someone will inevitably come along a...
January 24, 2025 at 04:56
Yep, good points. :up: Oddly enough, many years ago there was a group in the UK called something like, "Atheists for Aquinas." It was a bunch of philo...
January 24, 2025 at 04:18
Thank you. Very interesting. Great quotes, and I especially liked the first one, but his points on the existential quantifier also seem very good. At ...
January 24, 2025 at 02:59
Yes, I agree. This is what was talking about earlier with "empathy" (though I don't think that is the right word for it). Yes, but if something is not...
January 24, 2025 at 02:39
Yes, thank you. You're the first "inscrutabilist" who has owned up to the "puzzle." :grin: :party: 1. If reference is inscrutable, then we cannot comm...
January 24, 2025 at 02:18
If we just step back and for a moment forget all of the philosophy we've read, how would we view existence? In a pre-critical sense it would seem that...
January 24, 2025 at 02:00
Do you believe that we are successfully communicating with each other right now? Because it seems to me that if reference were inscrutable, then this ...
January 24, 2025 at 01:09
Threads with a two-sentence OP are usually a runaway train after the first dozen posts. Nothing to divert. ;)
January 24, 2025 at 00:57
The first point about the mean is that if you think you are identifying it then you must be able to point to both extremes. Many people can only point...
January 24, 2025 at 00:32
All you did was pretend to do something. I could do the same thing, "There is an x such that x is the king of France. Clearly a quantification." There...
January 24, 2025 at 00:11
To add to this: folks on this forum don't know how to argue. Many of them don't even properly understand what an argument is, and therefore to get the...
January 23, 2025 at 20:50
Agreed, and I think the "cool kids" point is spot-on. Here's another of the irrational themes: Why does Analytic philosophy think that if a descriptio...
January 23, 2025 at 20:37
But this is clearly wrong. Consider, "There are things that exist which we have never conceived." To be is not to be the value of a bound variable. Th...
January 23, 2025 at 20:06
My take: If Jones says “I think p,” Jones is conscious of his own thinking of p, and is therefore self-conscious. Maybe he says that he thinks without...
January 23, 2025 at 18:58
Yes, I can see how your OP could be read that way. I don’t think so. Consider: when someone dies we can transplant their organs into other bodies, but...
January 23, 2025 at 18:55
We know it's a joke because we know it's wrong. But if you don't have anything better, I guess you just assert it while laughing. That's one of the re...
January 22, 2025 at 20:57
- Great posts. :up:
January 22, 2025 at 19:49
If someone says "I think p" they are thinking p self-consciously. This seems pretty basic, but perhaps you are thinking in extraordinarily mundane ter...
January 22, 2025 at 19:28
Maybe now is a good time to tell you that a fitting subtitle for the forum would be as follows: The\,Philosophy\,Forum:\,Where\,Conversations\,Go\,Ter...
January 21, 2025 at 05:44
Let's revisit your original claim (my bolding): If someone lies or says something they do not understand then we cannot "accurately notate that they a...
January 21, 2025 at 03:48
- Okay, but then what would be a case where one utters "I think p" without thinking about thinking p? Or where one utters "p" without thinking p? I ca...
January 21, 2025 at 02:42
- Fair enough. :up:
January 21, 2025 at 01:10
Loved it. :lol: But I thought Sophie would be more welcoming!
January 21, 2025 at 01:07
I was thinking of starting a reading group on the SEP article, but I don't currently have time to field it. Feel free to start it yourself. A lot of c...
January 21, 2025 at 00:52
Yes, and we say that someone has the concept of a triangle when they can draw, identify, and work with triangles. But it does not follow that the conc...
January 21, 2025 at 00:42
Intelligence, for one. I agree you don't need to use the word. Essences aren't exactly about objective structure, as that's more universals, but that ...
January 21, 2025 at 00:02
I agree. Are they, though? The issue I see is that you cannot notate that you are thinking p without self-consciously thinking p. If the words "I thin...
January 20, 2025 at 22:04
It was one of the central pieces of the OP in "Quantifier Variance, Ontological Pluralism, and Other Fun Stuff," a thread in which you posted 69 times...
January 20, 2025 at 21:53
For sure. That's a whole new level of what I was talking about, where a mountain of sources are adduced in favor of one's position without any real ar...
January 20, 2025 at 20:08
Thanks , that is helpful, especially insofar as you shine a light on the role that Hegel is playing here. I am pretty ignorant when it comes to Hegel.
January 20, 2025 at 20:02
:up: It seems like he is making the 'factual' in "factual interest" do a heck of a lot of work. Sider is an interesting figure for the discussion, and...
January 20, 2025 at 18:38
You are welcome to listen to McDowell's lecture.
January 20, 2025 at 18:10
Thanks for that, . Your posts in this thread have helped me understand Kant. I agree. I don't see principled reasons for why it wouldn't. - :up: --- -...
January 20, 2025 at 18:06
That is very close to what Rödl thinks. McDowell uses Aristotle and Anscombe to show why it is wrong.
January 20, 2025 at 06:45
See, I disagree. But let's distinguish the term in your conclusion, namely "the meaning of the word 'tiger'." I bought my nephew a National Geographic...
January 20, 2025 at 06:28
If Rodl had said that Kant arguably implies it there would be no problem at all. What he was doing was name-dropping Kant in favor of his theory. The ...
January 20, 2025 at 03:10
No, he doesn't. He says that the unity of the pure apperception is the transcendental unity of self-consciousness, and that the pure apperception prod...
January 20, 2025 at 02:52
The whole question is about unpacking the word "that." You are begging the question. The word "that" does not solve the age-old philosophical question...
January 20, 2025 at 01:24
- :up:
January 20, 2025 at 01:17
: At some point the web has got to include statements -- beliefs -- about how propositions connect with that world. : I quite agree! But what will the...
January 20, 2025 at 00:56
But that was already done on page 6 and even earlier than that. This began when our resident Kantian, Mww, kept telling us that Kant does not say what...
January 20, 2025 at 00:28
I am saying that Rodl lies about what Kant says (and this issue was a theme throughout the early parts of this thread). Why think that if Rodl had not...
January 19, 2025 at 23:55
Rodl says, "Kant said: the I think accompanies all my thoughts." Did Kant say that or not? You're twisting yourself in knots to read the text contrary...
January 19, 2025 at 20:57
I see this as the central error of modern philosophy, and I have often considered writing a thread on it. You beat me to it. :up: Argument (and knowle...
January 19, 2025 at 19:21
- Thanks Paine. :up:
January 19, 2025 at 18:45