No, you wouldn't. Having a referent occurs in language, and so is public. Hence of course a purely subjective approach - such as "will" - cannot expla...
:grin: I don't much care what he thought. The simple point is that the world is often other than what one might have willed. That sometimes the direct...
~~ That's an extreme sort of realism. I don't see how you could maintain a differentiation between real and nominal definitions. Seems to me that all ...
Trouble is, reality does not care what you will, inflicting itself on you without regard for you desires. In that way it's not unlike like Schop's mum...
Seems to me those with a background in Aristotelian logic tend to view things through essentialist glasses. So: looks to presuppose essence. You seem ...
Yeah, does that. There's more going on here, though, as Davidson's truth-conditional semantics explicitly deals with beliefs. We'd have to get how he ...
There are things we don't know, yes. (Odd, this, the entry of realism. Realism is the view that there are true statements that are unknown. Antirealis...
Well, on the one hand, you thought you knew where your keys were but you were mistaken. You can only properly be said to "know" something if it is tru...
Yrs, in much the same way as Antigonish is about a little man who wasn't there. , like most folk, agrees with you, but only when someone else is doing...
Cheers. Don't feel obligated to respond to the article. As mentioned above, Davidson was seeking to interpret a natural language, such as English, usi...
This is all a long way from anything I might be tempted by. To deal with this we would have to look into what sort of thing an essential property of a...
The nature of belief... as a family resemblance. To "It is impossible to exaggerate the damage done to philosophy and cognitive science by the mistake...
So am I. The Wittgenstein you critique is very far from the Wittgenstein with whom I am familiar. The argument that seems salient to 's OP is that if ...
No. Adding essence here doesn't make things clearer. It's just that there is an aspect that is shown better by other analysis. I don't see much point ...
https://eclass.uoa.gr/modules/document/file.php/PHS180/davidson_on_saying_that.pdf It's obtuse, but he shows how to analyse "Galileo said that the Ear...
:rofl: Around and around. Seems to me you talk as if the belief is something more than the behaviour, existing beyond that, until I push the point, th...
The think about "knowing" the keys are in the draw when they are in your pants pocket is that you did not know the keys were in the draw, because they...
Yep. The things shown, not said. So you are saying he was wrong here? That there are facts that language cannot latch on to? But then what grounds cou...
Sure. It's not a product of such statements. The statement sets out an aspect of the grammar of belief, as between an agent and a proposition. I maint...
You know things that are not true? I don't think so. What you can be said to know is true. Otherwise, you don't know it. Been that way since at least ...
You may not have. But at some stage you have left me with the impression that you think there are beliefs that cannot be put into the form "X believes...
I think the main source is On Saying That. Edit: The idea is something like that we sometimes both use and mention; SO "Galileo said that the Earth mo...
Transcendental arguments are treacherous. It's the bit that says "The only way in which Y could be true is if X". It's usually wrong, either because t...
We couldn't recognise a conceptual scheme that was radically different to ur own, as a conceptual scheme. :wink: Is what wales and dolphins do, with a...
It's always easier to critique someone if you start by misunderstanding them. In particular, Wittgenstein went to some length to point out that langua...
So you would build another, somewhat larger bottle. As said, before unfortunately getting lost in the infinite and supposing "the fundamental truth of...
This recalcitrant topic probably deserves it's own eternal thread, like the one @"Baden" set up for antinatalists. There are a few ways to parse "to b...
Well, you are not the first to make this suggestion. After Wittgenstein, the standard response is that there is nothing you can say about this "base r...
The scope of the belief statements surely makes explicit your quibble? The difference is between "Kent is Superman" and "Lois believes that Kent is Su...
Now, who would have predicted such a witty, erudite and original response. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/39/Domestic_Goose.jp...
I'd say pick your fight. If, after you explain climate change so cogently, the reply is a verbose "But it's cold in winter", then you are wasting time...
Your interlocutor's pretence of rationality is risible. It's dubious that such oxygen thieves deserve any sort of interaction, let alone attempting to...
~~ Yeah, I also regret having entered into the discussion. Yet there has been quite a bit of progress in explaining mind in physiological terms. So I'...
It seems worth making the point that parsing natural languages into formal languages is not a game of finding the one, correct, interpretation. Rather...
I don't see a salient issue with (2) and (3). Roughly, 2. B(Lois, Kent (wears glasses)); Kent=superman; but ?~B(Lois, Superman(wears glasses) 3. B(Loi...
Comments