J

:smile:

Hope you don't wind up with an apple embedded in your carapace.

Couple o things: Is "sign up" the same thing as "register"? I see a "sign up" button but nothing about registering, It tells me that "J" is too short ...

OK. My question, then, was: How would we figure out if what you (or anyone) says about real things and existent things is true? You say, "Existence is...

These are interesting positions to take. Do you intend the various statements to be truth-apt? If so, how would one go about demonstrating the truth -...

Yes. If we group these quotes together, I think we get a good picture of the issue. It reinforces my notion that there's nothing wrong with the case y...

:up: I'll look forward to it.

Right -- essentially the two options that @"Esse Quam Videri" laid out. But I'll emphasize again, we can be unsure which option we like better, while ...

That's how I see it, thanks for the elaboration. That said, I'd love to hear from @"Sam26" at this point. It's a somewhat complex question and surely ...

Yes, you understand my point exactly. Sticking with actual games, there are cases where game rules have in fact been changed to improve the game, or a...

One way to highlight the issue might be to ask: Can a game be improved? If so, what criteria should be used? Are there ways of evaluating a "better ga...

I've read your paper. It's a real advance on the topic, and should certainly be published. Where are you thinking of sending it? A couple of comments:...

This is exactly right. Your effort is towards laying out a conception of justification that is recognizable and plausible, and supported by practice; ...

As I'm going through your paper -- which is extremely good -- I want to clarify one thing: Do you consider that traditional JTB is supposed to guarant...

Great. Yes, it's the contrast that's important. We don't need a terminological conclave to decide which term might be the "right" one to capture it. I...

Completely agree. Yes again, and @"Sam26" certainly sees it this way too. This is where I've been focusing. I think we've come a long way in clarifyin...

On the minimal commitment, yes, I agree that it can ground inquiry. But are you also saying that philosophy can't or shouldn't be asking about what th...

Yes, though at this point I do wish we had a different term than "grammar," since grammar has such a specific meaning within language. Obviously none ...

OK, good enough. Also OK, as long as we don't get too excited about "appearance and reality." That, as you say, is a different metaphysical animal in ...

No, the hinges are neither habitual nor pragmatic/convenient. But . . . "By which we take ourselves to be in contact" -- that's the rub. What is the p...

Good, that works for me. And we can notice that the liminal area between the two projects would lie in how to understand the term "stand fast". It has...

Right. The necessity of God for the very structure of justification is -- if true -- deeply hidden. So much so, that it requires huge systematic effor...

This is an excellent question, and something of a thorn in the side of the traditional understanding of what a proposition is. A prop. is supposed to ...

Any of the propositions that form the premises of a syllogism, for instance. Prop A: "All humans are mortal." Prop B: "Socrates is a human." Taken mer...

A possibly interesting question occurred to me, reading this. Most sophisticated theology would maintain that the existence of God is certain, but not...

I agree this is difficult. Harking back to my distinction between the two senses of "thought": Suppose we substituted the "proposition" sense of "thou...

This is actually Descartes's phrase -- quite a prescient distinction for a 17th century person! Yes. The first step is to rescue Descartes from incohe...

Yes, that distinction is important, and as we've said, Descartes's project is off on a tangent from ordinary epistemic certainty. His kind of certaint...

That would be the point in question. Bernard Williams, in his book on Descartes, has this analysis: Would you agree that this is the Wittgensteinian o...

I appreciate these thoughts on the Cartesian method. Possibly I'm not quite seeing your point, because my defense of Descartes would be simply this: T...

Good. So the question is, Does this picture change if we replace "Kant" with the premises of an entailment? Not everyone would recognize the correct c...

OK, I see. Do you think conscious thoughts might be entirely epiphenomenal? All the work happening below the surface?

Or an ethical one.

I meekly suggest that you're both right. Both interpretations are mainstream Christian theology, with the redemptive-sacrifice one being the more trad...

I have to say, it does to me. A Roomba can do this, and more. This again brings up the equivocation in what the word "thought" can represent -- either...

Yes, I think we're all on the same page with this now. I raised a question about how the Cartesian method does or doesn't fit this conception, and tha...

Thanks, this is very good. You've helped me understand better what's at stake in the particular, problematic "why?" When this level of "why?" is reach...

That's a good question. In his referenced paper on Witt and Godel, @"Sam26" writes: "As Wittgenstein observes, "There is no why. I simply do not. This...

Maybe this: You/we take it to be certain that the role of understanding in human consciousness is significant, that it makes a difference, that it is ...

I kind of agree. But the mystery enters when we claim that the person's thought is the cause of the movement. We don't say that about the fly, as you ...

Thanks!

Yes. And we can go on to ask: If we know what sort of thing a hinge is, does it render further questions about its status as a building block of ratio...

Fair enough, as long as we can agree that they really are different versions of Christianity, not a correct or authorized version and a series of here...

I probably won't be contributing much to this thread, but . . . you do know that millions of people call themselves Christians today who don't believe...

Yes, this is the main elaboration I was offering. And it connects with what you say here: You're right, of course, that (linguistic) dialogic confirma...

Really strong OP, thanks. I especially admire how you invite critique, even offering your own sense of the possible weak points for discussion. There'...

It's the "act accordingly" part that's hard to explain. Your account is given in terms of mental events, culminating in thinking the thought of standi...

Well, it would matter in the context of what can be causal. We have a kind of intuitive sense of how one thought might lead to another, but when we as...

Yes, that's clear now, but what I was asking is: If "You" had been a 5th person, would that remove the puzzle? If so, that would tell us that the puzz...

So I assume they can also can be causal in regard to the physical world, not just other thoughts? So this overlaps the familiar problem of how to expl...