Banno

What?

Austin's Paper is here. The third article, page 44 and on. His style is droll; if you do not find it amusing skip to the bottom of p.54. Other similar...

Well, that's disappointing. One more try, perhaps. Let's look at "Does quantum physics say nothing is real?". Austin's strategy is to ask about the us...

So it's of use in examining biological growth? It explains the way cities expand? It has uses in the design of computers? It seems not.

That'll be why idealism, not realism, is so appealing to those with a spiritual bent.

:grin: And the worst for perfectly bad reasons. Despite it being a commonplace around this forum, making shit up does not make one a good philosopher....

Cheers. I had, in my incipient senility, supposed that the comment you made had been made by @"180 Proof", and had to check back on the context. But I...

I don;'t agree. Austin is certainly addressing the ontological question. I am sorry that you appear nto to understand this. Perhaps if you read the ar...

Seems there are problems in following the line of discussion here. That was @"TClark"'s comment, not mine. I thought it odd at the time he made it, bu...

Belated cheers for that. She's a good precautionary measure against scientism, too.

Well, "god did it" will explain anything and everything, and hence is useless. If nothing is ruled out, nothing is actually explained. For the rest, y...

:rofl: Have it your way!

P's and Q's? Not your cuppa, you said. But here they are. What is that paragraph? An apology? A prayer? A curse? Certainly not an argument.

I'm with you on that.

yep, second post: But this bit leaves one wanting to see the film... Mainstream? That'll be the folk with "I break for angels" bumper stickers. How do...

Stiring the theist pot, I see. The argument might be simplified to: 1. god created everything. 2. therefore, god created evil. ...and since theists ha...

What is? Your post needs a good edit. See my comment to T Clark, above, concerning odd restrictions on "ontology".

Sure; and that is what Austin has given you. I had supposed you had seen this, seems I was mistaken. I've noted previously how folk seem to adopt a na...

Not at all. Just settling a certain puzzlement at an erroneously perceived acquiescence.

T can speak for himself, but he introduced the list of definitions only to immediately dismiss it, and I will bold the following: Austin is addressing...

What are you applauding?

Perhaps. I found your post obscure. There's a difference between a paradox and a contradiction. "Contradiction" is not an empty term - it has a clear ...

Neither Austin nor I defining real as genuine. Rather, the context serves to restrict the use of the term. What Austin noticed is that "real", and var...

No, it doesn't. You're being far too generous. A parent ought want the best for their child. It follows that one ought improve the way things are. It ...

Philosophy includes aesthetics. But further, if you would provide an account of some concept, best to provide an account of all its uses. That way you...

, is considering only a restricted use of "real". This definition does not serve to sort a fake masterpiece from real Picaso, a counterfeit from a rea...

, Thanks. Yep, rhetoric over logic it is.

I'm not seeing the difference. Is it that in any possible world, if event A happens then even B also happens - we say A causes B? But there are possib...

Isn't that circular? " ...necessary in the sense that the cause is necessary for the effect" but then "A cause is necessity between particular things"...

I did. My post cause your reply, without necessitating it.

I suspect its more that causation has no specific sense of the sort posited - it's rather a family resemblance, sometimes necessity, sometimes implica...

https://scontent.fcbr2-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/298880928_10158583766476691_8458630199646842283_n.png?_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=...

I fear i do understand what there is to be understood of it; pop philosophy mixed with a bit of Eastern spirituality and Quantum. You have not shown y...

No, I'm attacking what you say for its incoherence.

This very wording sets my teeth on edge. Pure cream, fine. Pure truth, bullshit. Utter cobbler's awls. Fucksake. Seems you are beyond redemption. The ...

Such a distinction would imply that what is loosely called continental philosophy does not use the developments of logic since Frege. While I have som...

:wink: Really? There is no necessity for you to reply to my post - this post. There are possible worlds in which you choose not to reply. Yet should y...

Whatever the dialectic is, it is not logic in the modern sense.

Sure, we can make stuff up. But doing philosophy, being rational, involves sorting out the consequences of the things we make up. Not just anything wi...

Bring Back Boris Campaign slogan: Better than a limp lettuce!

Not quite what I had in mind with 'Davidson and Anscombe's notion of intent being "under a description"'. You are familiar with Davidson's example of ...

I've no idea.

That's a myth, not an explanation. If that myth doesn't fit the commonplace of it being true now, and yesterday, that I went to a Harry Manx show the ...

Ah, well. Another "watch this space"... Thanks.

But I knew it was true when I wrote that post a few hours ago, so it's not only now that I know it to be true. And yes, if I don't remember that it wa...

Hmm. So was some sort of consensus reached as to which view was correct?

It verges on a civil war. Civil war is the least civil. It magnifies the narcissism of small differences. If Ukraine were in any way a part of Russia ...

I don't follow how and yet when I asked you replied leaving me to conclude that being an organism was essential to having intent. Does it go all the w...

Well, in this case, that's right, since ...The promise of progress, lost? Are we on your view mistaken to talk in intentional terms?

You're right about that. If what you are addressing is "how to resist entropification" then it is far from clear that you are addressing intent at all...