J

To your last point: yes, I think it is just a question of style. Rodl expressed himself sloppily, and your interpretation is correct. I think that’s w...

Good. But putting the question in terms of "correct" rather than "incorrect" has a point, so if you wouldn't mind playing interlocutor with me, I'll a...

You've got the "think1/think2" distinction down perfectly. If I understand the issue you're raising, it's whether an experience such as "my hand hurts...

You're welcome. I don't at all mind trying to explain this stuff -- if I can't do it, there's something wrong with either the ideas or my understandin...

I think it's very close. "Think1" is meant to refer to the "utterance" of a thought, if you will -- the specific time and place when the thought occur...

I’ve been rereading Davidson’s “On Saying That” and noticed an interesting parallel with our “I think p” question. The essay is about indirect discour...

:grin: Well, you don't have to. . . . As a short cut, forget about "thought1" -- this is just me trying to specify some terminology -- and focus on th...

I wish Rodl had devoted more consideration to this. Or perhaps he does, as I've not finished the book yet. Certainly such a "group activity" could be ...

I'm up to 5.6, Nagel's Dream. Much more familiar territory for me.

Lots of good stuff in your reply. Let me begin by focusing on this: How would we know when one was correct?

My citation was actually a direct quote from The Last Word, an earlier work than the "Evolutionary Naturalism" essay, I'm pretty sure. I suspect that ...

Just quickly on this one, heading out the door. I didn't mean it was a mistranslation of the possessive. I meant that different languages (and differe...

Plato, for one. When Socrates questions Euthyphro about the meaning of "piety," they are both assuming that there is a word, eusebeia, that correspond...

I haven't gotten to 9.3 yet! (I read philosophy really slowly.). I'll try to remember to come back to your post when I have.

Ah, ambiguity!

Good. This is tricky. Using my terms, "When I think1 that 'the oak tree is shedding its leaves', I know that this is my thought1 rather than Pat's tho...

Again, really appreciate your précis. A few thoughts: Two important points here: First, as @"Banno" and others have noted, Rodl is clearly using "thou...

Yeah, I'm not happy with that either. But I don't like that move in general -- too gnostic for my tastes.

Hmm. I don't know how to answer this without pulling in a lot of metaphysical commitments -- which I'd rather not do because I think the thought1/thou...

I think you're pointing to there being limit-cases in all of this, which is fine. Neither I nor (I believe) Quine is trying to say that translation is...

Yes, that's what I meant. I phrased it that way, in the context of disambiguating "thought," because of this from "Sense and Reference": Julian Robert...

Yes, especially if Hegelianism is reduced (as it apparently was when Kierkegaard was writing) to a weird version of scientism, and a complete collapse...

These notes are terrific, thank you. I'm going to read them more carefully and see if I can anything to supplement. But it's great to have someone els...

Well, I hope my post above offers another possibility. Yes, to think is to have a thought, big deal. But if we distinguish the senses of think1 and th...

Yes, that's my hypothesis. Right, that's the natural next question. This is where Rodl's idealism comes in. He believes there's a great deal more to b...

This gets to both the questions I ended my earlier post with: To be continued.

I hope they're discovered! Do they fit your own experience? I only mean to stipulate the terminology, or rather bemoan that we haven't got a better on...

There it is! -- "the I think accompanies all our thoughts2". Fregean thought as "propositional content" versus thought as a current event, so to speak...

Ah, I think I'm understanding you better. So my question would be, Isn't language available to pre-literate people? Surely the words come first, and t...

OK, I see that. I agree, it's iffy. I think Rodl is probably denying the "two thoughts" interpretation.

I've realized how much of the difficulties with the "I think" hinge on the two senses of “think” (and “thought”) I discussed above (and elaborated upo...

Isn't that what you meant here (on Rodl's behalf, not your own)?: Sorry if I got you wrong. Maybe you thought I was attributing the thesis to you, rat...

Thanks for this, very interesting. I especially appreciate: and I'm about to post something in the "p and I think p" thread that touches on the reduct...

Miraculous.

OK, that helps some. Well, no. Rodl specifically says, "This cannot be put by saying that, in every act of thinking, two things are thought: p and I t...

I hadn’t responded to this and similar points earlier because it seemed to be based on a misunderstanding and I wasn't sure how to clarify it. The "I ...

So "I believe" wouldn't be a separate fact that could appear in a predication? Just asking . . . I think this is pretty close to Rödl, yes.

That might be satisfactory to Rödl as an idealist. I don't know his position on the physical world. Just to note that "in the same way" could use a li...

Right, it's a puzzle knowing what to do with them. Rödl calls 1st person statements like these "a thorn in the flesh of the friends of propositions." ...

Rödl replies to this head-on in S-C & O. He says, of recursive, 1st person cases: Rödl goes on to argue that the problem can't be contained this way, ...

These are excellent questions. I believe it was Keynes who, when asked whether he thought in words or images, replied, "I think in thoughts." Is there...

Yes by all means. I PM'd you about format.

Oh stop! We're snowed in where I live. I’m not sure. Do you mean that, because it would take a mind to demonstrate the mind-independent nature of meta...

I agree. In the context of this thread, the relevant rephrasings are probably: a) I think: "The Eiffel Tower is 400m tall". b) I think: "I think the E...

No! -- or at least that's how I read him. He's really saying judgment shouldn't be called a propositional attitude, despite what all the traditional s...

Oh gosh, no. I just think his book does the best job I know of laying out the problem. That's the thing . . . he isn't trying to settle the issue at a...

Circling back to this . . . Yes, I agree this is a way to state some of the problem in a different vocabulary. I know Husserl from the outside, so to ...

Well, this probably won't get anywhere -- you sound like your mind is made up -- but OK. When I think "Water is H2O," I am imagining myself speaking o...

I don't recall that in Nagel, though I'm not sure. Indeed. If you're willing to regard that as an open, rather than rhetorical, question, then the Nag...

That's certainly one way to "look" at it. (Pardon the "view" metaphor!) I think the desirability of articulating a "view from nowhere" lies in helping...