J

Yes, very good. That said, I believe there is still a larger issue about the basis of agreement -- broadly pragmatic and communication-oriented, or cl...

Could you say more about this? Perhaps the target statement ought to be this, from T&B: I take this passage to be central to what Kimhi wants to say i...

I wouldn't sell him short. "Reliant on ambiguity" implies that he's trying to get away with something, but I think it's rather the case that he's not ...

Yes. You've just said what I said, above, but you said it better. I should have read this more carefully before posting -- the point has been well mad...

I like the clarity of this, but doesn't it beg the question? The "other side," so to speak, would say, "A proposition is supposed to be a thing with a...

I agree that this is the best way to understand what's at issue here about "thought". (Though I don't want to take sides on the larger question.). Pre...

Well, it’s certainly wandered off in many directions. I just reread my OP, which included my optimistic belief that we didn’t have to be concerned wit...

I'll have to ponder that. Two clarifications: I wish I'd said what you quoted, but I was myself quoting Julian Roberts, from The Logic of Reflection. ...

Right. Right. Not using that language, but I'm struggling to find a better way of talking about Kimhi's very unusual (to modern logic) commitment to t...

Thank you. This give me a good launchpad into Soames. I don't yet see anything that rules out a more hermeneutic approach to truth, but of course that...

This is key, and I'll allow myself one more go at the individual-term question. It's the difference you're drawing between ordinary language and "what...

I've adopted the concept from Habermas, but either way, yes, it's a question rooted in hermeneutics. Plato too, arguably.

Yes. This shows the important difference between context and truth-value. Kimhi is asking us to rethink some basic assumptions about the "givenness" o...

Yes, which is why I keep trying to find some better, more perspicuous ways to carve up "force." I was leaning toward believing that "force" itself sho...

@"leontiskos" The go-to modern work on this is probably Kendall Walton's Mimesis as Make-Believe, if your interested in pursuing it. Excellent study. ...

Sounds good, I'll do that, and then toss any questions I have to you. Just one follow-up now: I still don't see that this follows. Can't you have a mi...

@"banno" @"frank" Hmm. Does this amount to pointing out that any definition of “truth” would have to be true, thus opening up the regress? Or is it ra...

The Parmenidean problem doesn't do much for me either, and I'm sorry Kimhi chose to start his book with it. I'm pretty sure that the majority of the i...

One of the best and most accessible parts of T&B is Kimhi's discussion of the four ways we can think about the relation of logic to thought (and reali...

Yes, that’s how I understand it too. And for Frege, names are, in an important sense, outside logic, because logic only deals with things with “judgea...

No, I'm confident Frege would never say such a thing, and I was trying to get @"Leontiskos"' agreement on what he would say. I thought about including...

Sorry, I misunderstood the diction of your question to mean that, like me, you weren't quite sure about this. But obviously you know a lot about it. Y...

I feel like I'm stuck in an Abbot & Costello routine! If this really represents what Frege would say to me when I ask him whether he comprehends the w...

I'm hoping @"Banno" could speak to this. I'm pretty sure Frege thought truth was definable within his predicate logic, but that might not amount to th...

He is proposing what he calls "psycho / logical monism" and claiming Wittgenstein as a fellow monist. Understanding this is, for me, by far the most d...

Yes, Kimhi calls this "psycho / logical dualism" and rejects it. According to him, neither the Platonists nor the "it's just how we think" philosopher...

It’s hard to tease out a direct answer here to my “What would Frege say about comprehending a singular term?” question, but here are a couple of thing...

This is a good discussion among you, @"Banno", and @"Srap Tasmaner". I'll just step in to say that the quoted passage sounds like it's on the right tr...

It's hard to do, no question. Does the post about Boynton, above, help any? More than a matter of liking or disliking, I would say. I can't recap all ...

I want to highlight a few things in Owen Boynton’s first-rate essay/review on Thinking and Being. This will be a brief discussion and I really hope ev...

OK, it's clear to me now which sentence you meant. I began a reply about the "more to it than that" . . . and found myself in deep waters. To be hones...

I do recall that, thanks for bringing it up: On Denoting. So we can invite @"Leontiskos" to compare Russell's view as well -- does he (Leontiskos) thi...

I’m happy to have both Novak and Rombout on tap. As I mentioned yesterday, my time is a bit curtailed this week but I’m sure they are both worth readi...

Yikes! Thanks for the translation. Well, here we are back to the vexing question of "assertion" a la Kimhi. To push you down the rabbit hole, I'd need...

That is very kind of you to say, thanks.

No, you’re right, I was oversimplifying for the sake of brevity. He thinks that both Frege and Geach maintain “Frege’s point.” So a better rewrite of ...

I am so lost in the sample sentences. Is this really how Dummett presents them? Would you mind either punctuating them differently (parentheses, maybe...

Well, I hope you jump in if the mood strikes you. I sure do, and also about his style. Where were the editors at Harvard UP?! But let's face it, he ha...

OK, but I'm still trying to break it down a bit more. 'If p then q' is a sentence, but so are 'p' and 'q', presumably. To answer your question about "...

That's all I meant, yes. And of course there are several points of view in this thread, including Kimhi's, that call into question this way of seeing ...

@"banno" @"leontiskos" @"srap tasmaner" @"janus" @"fdrake" @"schopenhauer1" @"russellA". and apologies to anyone I missed: @"Pierre-Normand" has found...

I'll put my original Step 2 here so we can have it in front of us: Does this amount to an argument for the necessity of Frege's separation? I thought ...

Yes, a little more, but first let me be sure I understand you. In 'If p then q', are you saying that 'p' and'q' are mentioned?

Agreed. Good analysis. I'd only add that whether there is indeed a "wholeness of KG" is a central question, and Kimhi is trying very hard to argue for...

Some of this is good, I agree. "Kimhi argues that a self-conscious, first-person perspective — an 'I' — is internal to logic" -- that's the most persp...

I'm mainly pointing out the difference between the standard epistemological questions "How are we justified in saying p is true?" or "What makes p tru...

Good, I'll watch for it too. :lol:

Fantastic, I'll read the Boynton immediately, thanks. It will be good to have an introduction to Rodl as well -- I don't know his work apart from the ...

This is a gracious way of phrasing your criticism! As you can see from the exchange with @"Leontiskos" just above, he and I are also wondering about t...

This is his “psycho / logical monism” put quite plainly. Looks like we’re at a similar place, then. I phrased it as “Is this just playing with words?”...