J

This, in a simple sentence, is the bone of contention. Our language, our choice of a metaphor like "view," certainly suggests that someone or ones mus...

I'm going to post the following here and also in the "Question for Aristotelians" thread, because they seem to have intertwined a bit (as threads will...

I'm going to post the following here and also in the "p and 'I think p'" thread, because they seem to have intertwined a bit (as threads will). This q...

And this one replies to the Hanks review I mentioned -- they make a good pair to read: https://www.academia.edu/110564453/The_force_and_the_content_of...

Another difference, which gets close to the issues that concern Rödl, is that "1) The oak tree is standing there" is asserted from an implied or absen...

https://www.academia.edu/110564586/Self_Consciousness_and_Objectivity_An_Introduction_to_Absolute_Idealism

Except Hegel was never such a heart-throb. Gotta say, though, that for me the toughest sell so far in S-C&O is the connection to something genuinely H...

@"Wayfarer"Yes, there's a short review of Self-Consciousness & Objectivity there as well that's worth reading, if only because the author, Peter Hanks...

Thanks for this. By now I almost speak Rodelian -- his diction is surprisingly simple, if his ideas are not -- but this looks helpful.

I hope you do!

True enough, and the closest I've gotten so far to "what that is" would be: propositions seem to have to be uttered by someone; they aren't "in Nature...

I think this is right if we interpret the phenomenology generously. The point of response #1 was supposed to be that, strictly speaking, "I think" isn...

Fair enough. I could quibble about whether there would be propositional logic without interpretation, but I take your point.

No, that's a big help. Sort of what I thought. Rödl calls this kind of statement "a thorn in the side" of propositional logic, in part because of the ...

Yes, I remember that article, I'll reread, thanks. I may not have asked what I meant to ask here. I was wanting to affirm that all 4 statements are we...

Still beavering away at this, not ready for prime-time yet. But you can help with a clarification: A. "The oak tree is shedding its leaves." B. "I see...

Oh, no worries, these are difficult topics. FWIW, my question about representation was strictly about its Kantian use, since it seems that, if Rödl fu...

Thanks, that's it exactly.

I'm not sure if Kant had that in mind, but I'm pretty sure that's what Rödl means. Sorry to be a broken record, but once again it's the ambiguity of "...

Heck, I don't care about anybody's letters -- if it's wrong, it's wrong. I think you know Kant very well; would you say that Rödl's qualification here...

Truly, I wasn't aware there was a problem here. Can you say more about Kant's failure? I know you feel you've said what needs to be said already, but ...

Yes, I read Sartre that way too.

Yes, these reflections are in the spirit of the problem Rödl is considering. You're right to connect it with the ambiguity of "thought" as "event of t...

I'm sure it isn't, but I hate to get anything wrong. Let me fill out what Rödl says. His footnote for the claim "Kant said: The I think accompanies al...

Me too, thanks for clarifying. On your interpretation, "uncertainty" is definitely the better term for what I was trying to get across.

Several folks (@"banno", @"creativesoul", & others, sorry if I've forgotten) have responded to the OP by affirming that Pat is “right” in her report o...

Agreed. I resisted including a specifically propositional understanding of the "I think" as one of my suggested retorts to Pat because it seems like a...

I see what you're getting at but I meant something a little different. It hinges on the ambiguity of the word "thought". We commonly use the word to m...

Just as a preliminary, I'll lay out Rödl's very stark position: Indeed! He goes on to list the benefits that are generally agreed to accrue if we thin...

I agree that when you say, "Paris is crowded," you're stating your thought (belief, opinion, judgment) that Paris is crowded. We can make up unusual c...

And see my attempt at a similar disambiguation, above.

I think you're saying that the use of "I think" here is my sense 1, not sense 2. If I already believed or asserted it, why ask? Right, that would be a...

Sure. I believe someone who agreed that the "I think" is ubiquitous could go either way on whether there was more to reality than this relation -- whe...

Yeah, the reflexivity gets confusing. How about if we do this: p = "The oak tree is shedding its leaves." q = "I think, 'The oak tree is shedding its ...

Right. The disambiguation between the senses of "I think" applies equally well to "you think" and "she thinks." Good question. My allegiance, apart fr...

Good. It only becomes a cleavage if we find that some philosopher, in putting forward the theory that the "I think" is ubiquitous, is depending on one...

There's a lot here. Let me start with this (I italicized p when it stands unquoted, for clarity): Are you suggesting we call "the thing given to sensi...

So with these recent posts, we’re going a bit deeper into the question of “I think p” and its relation to p. Let’s start with an important disambiguat...

This is one of Rödl's key points. I don't follow this. Can you say more? Why couldn't the self have knowledge of something external to it?

I wasn't as clear as I should have been, thanks for your patience.

I tend to agree, based on the interesting responses to the OP. The key cleavage seems to be whether thought is meant to be essentially sentential or p...

Again, I'm not sure this is right. Is the thesis "The 'I think' accompanies all our thoughts"? I was trying to include, in my possible replies to Pat,...

Good way of putting it. This is a quintessentially philosophical experience: something is bothering me, for all the evident clarity, and I'm trying to...

OK, but we don't want to beg the question that it is speculative metaphysics. On one construal, we're supposed to be able to actually experience the "...

I know these terms from Husserl. I'll read it and get back to you, thanks.

Sure it is, or could be. If I thought this had a cut-and-dried answer, I wouldn't be bothering y'all with it. All opinions are welcome. So, same quest...

Really appreciate everyone's participation here. Right, I'd say that was the very question up for discussion, or one of them, at any rate. I was tryin...

Meaning it's a regress, and therefore untenable?

Well, the new way, if Kimhi and Rödl are on target, would deny the force/content distinction, as we know from that earlier thread about Thinking and B...

This is a good clarification. Do I think a representation? German-to-English may be an issue here. Kant uses the "I think" to structure all mental rep...