Thank you, this is very clear. I think @"Banno" is right that the issue being raised in the Quine essay strongly resembles de re / de dicto. Referenti...
No problem, I scare easily! Had to go to urgent care after reading Derrida. Let's grant, ex hypothesi, the first and the last sentences. Why would the...
OK. I quickly read through the SEP article and remembered why I'd never completely understood it in the first place. :smile: Glad to have some help fr...
Definitely! For me, that's one of the marks of an interesting philosopher -- their insights hang around, and show up in other contexts, and you realiz...
Yikes, no! I'm speaking about a particularly troublesome term -- "existence" or "being" -- that has no clearly correct usage. But the vast majority of...
That's about how I see it. The term "existence" simply doesn't lend itself to being identified with some particular thing/event/item, which could be c...
Any of the above, really. And, clearly, I'm doubtful if my wish can be granted. Joe offers a particular doctrine about existence, Mary offers a differ...
As you're demonstrating, it's possible to make a sensible recommendation about how to talk about existence, and make some further distinctions based u...
Yes. And this is amplified as follows: I added "any" to Quine's statement because we can now appreciate that referential opacity characterizes (at lea...
Lots to ponder in this essay. Just as a place to start: Quine contrasts two statements (pp. 147-8): (1) (?x)(x is necessarily greater than 7) and (2) ...
I don't want to keep this going unnecessarily, but it's worth pointing out that, in other contexts, it's perfectly ordinary to question someone's acco...
:lol: And I do it self-consciously! Looking back at the OP, I'm struck by how modest its scope was intended to be. I was, and am, quite unequipped to ...
Well, a paperback reprint. But it is signed by WV Quine as well. Understood. It'll be fun to look it over and then read some Kripke, as you suggest. I...
OK. (My copy has an inscription from WVQ's son to his teacher which reads, "Miss Ellis -- These essays are of a kind I never had to write for you and ...
Sorry, just catching up with this. Re Quine: That suggests a possible difference between the structure of definitional and logical truths. For as we k...
What is it exactly that we are supposed to know a priori, in this case? That “bachelor” means “unmarried male”? But that is not a priori at all – it’s...
This is very well put, and a good response to some of your thoughts, @"LaymanThinker". Note that @"Arne" isn't scoffing at the idea of "final answers,...
Good, and let's remind ourselves what Rodl means by "validity": He's not saying that "I judge p to be true" means that it must be true. We can certain...
Now take it a step further and substitute "Pat" for "Quentin" in "Quentin judges that 'Pat thinks the oak is shedding its leaves.'" This would give us...
Yes! And well explained. I think I understand the Fregean fix as well -- "the scope of the "?" is the whole argument." If you don't mind, could you fi...
Could you say more? The "I" refers to the thinker/speaker, and I'm not sure which "it" you mean. Sorry, I'm probably missing your point. q = "Grass is...
That's a great way of putting one of Rodl's puzzles. He challenges us, "What is 'merely content'? What can that mean?" Yes, in the way you describe, b...
Well, I was trying to go a little slower. Ignore Rodl's possible solution. Is there something that needs solving about the 1st person in order to keep...
I'm not sure, but following along in this thread, I believe what separates the Rodl-deniers from the Rodl-curious (I don't think we have any committed...
Let me ask you both, then, what you make of this: Rodl goes on to argue that the 1st person must be understood as self-conscious, but let's not worry ...
OK. I'd need to see what @"Wayfarer" comes up with here. I don't recall Rodl saying this. But way back in the OP, that was my possible response #2 to ...
An ingenious idea for "translating away" the 1st person. I think I know what Rodl might say, though: Pat is still performing an act of judging, regard...
First, note that Rodl does disagree with this. The quote is his version of what an opponent of his views might say. His own view is much closer to you...
Yes. For Pat to think, "Hey, I'm thinking about a tree" would be an example of a second thought being simultaneous (or nearly so) to a first thought. ...
It is, with a key difference which is obscured by Rodl's insistence on using "think that" as synonymous (or at least interchangeable) with "judge that...
Thanks for the excellent synopsis. Here's what I've realized about Rodl's claims here: On p. 38, in laying out the objection of his critic, he says (s...
Again, thanks for the interesting response. I think I understand exactly what you mean here. If we link the word "existence" with some particular feat...
Gadamer says this, in Truth and Method: This is a little cryptic, taken out of context, but what he means is that there are many things we experience ...
Aargh! Let's keep it completely facetious! No psychologism :razz: These are good descriptions of how background beliefs might function, and indeed, I ...
I appreciate your thoughtful response to this. The point I'm making about the word "existence" necessitates a kind of viewpoint shift that may not com...
No. If Brutus insists on misunderstanding what Cassius is saying, we can't help him, but he doesn't have to. And in fairness, Cassius is obviously try...
My preferred solution, as many of you know. I've seen you refer to this as Quine's "joke" about being, but it's about time we took him seriously. And ...
This would be a happy place to leave the issue, except . . . isn't there a way of posing the question "What are beliefs?" that doesn't have to involve...
I'm still stuck on this. What does this argument, valid or not, have to do with names and the alleged things they name? Do you mean that to "divide up...
Having given this some thought (ha!), I'd say it captures one of Rodl's ideas about self-consciousness provided we're very careful about what "include...
The comparison to "concept" is good. Neither one can be reduced to physical items. But don't we agree that there's more to existing than being physica...
@"Mww" This is how it strikes me as well, though Mww has certainly brought out details in the Kantian scheme that are more, well, detailed, than what ...
Comments