You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Richard B

Comments

I certainly am not questioning his logic here. However, I am questioning what he thinks science has discovered, that "water is H2O". In Naming and Nec...
January 04, 2026 at 22:29
Going back to Possible World entry, it starts with the following: “Anne is working at her desk. While she is directly aware only of her immediate situ...
December 26, 2025 at 00:37
. Yep, and we need not be referring anybody or anything at all for it to be meaningful, as Wittgenstein said we must not confound the meaning of a nam...
December 21, 2025 at 23:59
I would disagree with “to the scientist “water” is necessarily H2O” but I am not going to rehash everything I have said up to this point. But I would ...
December 20, 2025 at 00:06
Wow, quite an admission. I guess you are saying that when it comes to these general, vague terms like "water" or "air", we have either two choices, on...
December 19, 2025 at 16:30
There is a good quote from the Introduction in Noam Chomsky's book "Cartesian Linguistics" by James McGilvray that I find useful in this case: “This i...
December 19, 2025 at 03:54
Another way to answer this is "if you do not have H2O you do not have H2O, but something can always be named "water". But please provide your response...
December 19, 2025 at 03:13
My point with the example is prior to any Atomic Theory of Matter, the community can name the liquid and solid to assist in identifying macroscopic ob...
December 19, 2025 at 01:15
Please take a look at my earlier response to this. But I like to address this in a little different way. Let us say some fictitious community commonly...
December 18, 2025 at 04:10
We are talking about naming a sample of liquid. Why we name a liquid is not because it identifies some essence in all possible worlds. For example, it...
December 15, 2025 at 18:40
Kripke’s Possible World Semantics is logic demanding purity in language and purity in reality. However, neither is pure when studied closely and neith...
December 14, 2025 at 01:44
Sure thing, my critique would begin with natural kinds, and the “infamous” example “water is h2o”.
December 06, 2025 at 17:31
As a self proclaimed naturalist and a zealot follower of Wittgenstein, if you interested in Kripkean modal semantics and how its rigidity distorts wha...
December 06, 2025 at 03:28
I am a little unclear on what you mean here. When you say “something can be possible and real at the same time” what are you referring to when you say...
December 04, 2025 at 18:50
Something is very puzzling on what is being said here. It suggests colorful scene, as if I should go to a private room close by eyes and think about t...
December 04, 2025 at 05:22
This reminds me of Tolstoy’s short story “The Three Hermits”. In the story, a bishop visits an island where tales describe three old hermits who live ...
November 11, 2025 at 17:26
1. Free will is an uncaused cause. 2. Everything has a cause. 3. Free will is incoherent. 4. We don't have free will. 5. We are caused and we cause. 3...
November 10, 2025 at 23:32
Isomorphically, the world shares the same logical form as our thoughts and language. That explains why the world makes sense to us.
November 04, 2025 at 23:45
Looking at this from an early Wittgenstein perspective, a fact is just what is the case. And what is the case is some combination of objects. These ob...
November 04, 2025 at 22:56
How can they do that? They construct the ladder from their senses to arrive at the conclusion their senses cannot be trusted. See the straight stick, ...
June 22, 2025 at 04:11
Not sure what formal intuitionist logics or relevance logic exactly means but saw some general descriptions and I wonder if the following two examples...
June 05, 2025 at 05:04
Has this been proven to you, "The sceptic's argument is irrefutable".? If so, please let me know what this demonstration looks like. Let's see if I ca...
June 04, 2025 at 02:23
You say the skeptic’s argument is irrefutable, but pointless. We definitely agree it is pointless. However, I am not sure I want to agree it is irrefu...
June 03, 2025 at 20:07
Nice summary of Kripke's view. Let me see if I can make sense of it. Going back to my example of human beings able to distinguish between fresh water ...
June 01, 2025 at 17:03
"Save the surface, and you save all." Sherwin-Williams From, Pursuit of Truth, W.V. Quine
May 31, 2025 at 23:31
"Today, as usual, I came into the room and there was the bowl of flowers on the table. I went up to them, caressed them, and smelled over them. I than...
May 31, 2025 at 23:19
When someone is faced to take the initial plunge into any institution, whether religious, scientific, or philosophical, one can have faith to compel t...
May 31, 2025 at 18:27
From the same paper, Kripke on Heat and Sensations of Heat, Malcolm says something interesting in his introductory paragraph, "One thesis of Kripke's ...
May 31, 2025 at 02:56
I will let you have the last word for now. I am sure our paths shall cross again about this topic.
May 30, 2025 at 01:04
Interesting and stimulating, it has put my mind in such a state of agitation. Response nonetheless: "116 When philosophers use a word - "knowledge", "...
May 29, 2025 at 03:34
Where to begin? Let me take a stab at some Philosophy of Science and see where this goes. Let us considered three "scientific equations": 1. E=Mc² 2. ...
May 26, 2025 at 05:11
" As I have indicated, and seem to harp on; these identity statements that Kripke likes to use to support his views on a posteriori necessary truths s...
May 25, 2025 at 05:05
John Searle is a unique and interesting philosopher. He is a scientific realist who tip toes ever so close to being an idealist/indirect realist, whil...
May 24, 2025 at 03:50
Yes, welcome to Wittgenstein's therapy and watch your philosophical problems dissolve away.
May 24, 2025 at 03:13
Not sure what you are getting at, but I think a summary of what John Searle is doing in Intentionality may help to develop some understanding. In the ...
May 24, 2025 at 02:40
Why not question whether there needs to be some process of recognition or identification at all. We humans have natural responses we call memories, dr...
May 24, 2025 at 01:41
Interestingly, John Searle takes a sort of descriptivist internal approach in his book “Intentionality”. He says, “The external causal chain plays no ...
May 23, 2025 at 04:39
Not sure what you are referring to but I will take a wild swing. One of my favorite passages from Naming and Necessity, “Don’t ask: how can I identify...
May 21, 2025 at 20:52
The term “water” can refer to many things, while “H2O” seems to be referring to something very precise. It seems to me Kripke wants to say “water” pre...
May 21, 2025 at 16:37
Ok, let’s explore extension. Can we say water is necessarily H2O, D2O, HDO and T2O? (Because all of these naturally occurring in nature when analyzing...
May 20, 2025 at 23:16
Are you saying H2O is necessarily H2O, or Water is necessarily H2O? If the former, sure; but the later, well I guess it depends on how you use the ter...
May 20, 2025 at 22:53
To keep whittling away, or should I say quibbling away, at this idea that "water is H20", I like to provide a quote from Sketches of Landscapes by Avr...
May 17, 2025 at 03:58
From Naming and Necessity Kripke says, "Let's consider how this applies to the types of identity statements expressing scientific discoveries that I t...
May 16, 2025 at 21:54
Certainly, signs used in expression like "a = a" will express their meaning through their use. Where I find Kripke lacking is the usefulness of applyi...
May 16, 2025 at 19:35
I get what you saying, but he should stick with symbols, a = a. But as soon as you step into this messy world and use words like “water” and “H2O”, th...
May 16, 2025 at 18:56
My example would be Kripke’s attempt to show “water is H2O” is a posteriori necessary truth. This is not a demonstration of something true of realty b...
May 16, 2025 at 18:48
Saying “water is H2O” is a bit misleading and may cause confusion. There is the everyday common understanding of “water” that we use, “please go fetch...
May 16, 2025 at 18:19
I don't believe you see the absurdity of your belief in determinism but let us try. Assertion #1, I assert that I am free from such determinants. Asse...
May 16, 2025 at 04:32
I think you have this backwards, it should be “Determinants, constraints, consequences are never free from our choices.” Why? Because we are free to t...
May 15, 2025 at 17:39
[reply="Harry Hindu;987258" I have not said “we don’t see the world as it is” in this post. I don't believe I have commented on this, that said, I can...
May 12, 2025 at 16:00