Banno

A much clearer approach to the same issue is to get rid of the subjective/objective dichotomy by talking about the stuff about which we agree or disag...

My apologies, I'm not sure what to make of this. So Epistemic Logic is the various logics that include predicates for belief and knowledge - yes? Wher...

...but the claim was that flowers are is unknowable. So you can't know anything about such causal chains. Always it comes back to this: you want to cl...

An odd question. The flower is X, or not; or it is Y, or not. You might have meant to ask: 'if I conceive a flower as X and you as ~X, what is the tru...

A few notes, for my purposes as much as for you. If we confine ourselves to the stories of Tolkien, then we can make inferences about fictional charac...

You seem to think this would be problematic. Why shouldn't fiction be logical? Holmes lived at 221b Baker Street. Why shouldn't we consider this to be...

Yep. Interesting, then, that introducing E! does not provide solace for those who wold do otherwise.

The ambiguity referred to is the domain of discourse, which may be whatever one desires. Well, it's false that Holmes lived at 222 Baker Street.

I'm just puzzled as to how you know that both bees and people perceive flowers, even if differently, and yet you also know that what flowers are is un...

SO you have: Bees perceived flowers People perceive flowers differently to bees There are flowers What flowers are is unknowable How flowers relate to...

Me, too.

, this is where I'm up to.

Bees perceived flowers differently to us. Therefore flowers do not exist. Something's missing.

You've made leprechauns part of the domain by presupposing the predicate "...is a leprechaun". That is, fictional species are part of the conversation...

Yeah, but there is a problem for the most common sort of philosophical arguments that try to treat existence as a predicate. Free Logic does not permi...

Ah, so defining E!a as ?y in a standard logic, E!a would just be true in the case that a is a member of the domain? At this stage there are no individ...

That should have been "there is something and so a lack of anything could not be the case". Introducing the past tense confuses the issue by introduci...

Hence we have definitions of "is" (existence, being) which are not dependent on time.

No. So far as I am aware, persistence is not a notion used in formal logic. Nor does formal logic presume that individuals persist over time.

Cheers. The split domain is a consequence of introducing E!, no? Since it leads directly to existent and non-existent individuals. The history section...

Sure, and if there is a dissection of "being" that somehow helps, I'm for it - see Free Logic. I don't wish to close off the discussion, but improve i...

I would have said rather that he showed there was no question here - that the notion of being was not the sort of thing that might be subject to furth...

Indeed! Meinong's logic - it seems that free logic is a part of the jungle - the jungle is broken into two domains, inner, the things that exists, and...

So for any singular term t, E!t is true if t is an element in the domain, and otherwise false. And further, since E!t=df ?x(x=t), E!t is defined using...

No, they don't seem to be. Languages such as LISP depend on iteration using self-reference. I'm not sure if a do loop avoids, or just hides, that self...

I've mentioned that the account given in the first hundred or so items in Philosophical Investigations provides a fine account. To that we might add A...

As to the usefulness of self-reference, it was pointed out that it is pivotal to iteration. Any iterative procedure by definition calls itself. Now th...

No, more a game. In this game, I ask a question and others quote holy writ. It's not that much fun.

But here's something curious: Free Logic. This is a branch of first order logic that does not assume that singular terms denote anything. How cool. Fi...

It's a definition of "=". Last chance.

Sure, but that's not what is represented in a=a. And we agreed earlier, in answer to Srap's question, that your account says nothing more.

Here are two answers. In the first, it is what is taken as granted in our conversation. In formal logic, it's the things named by the constants a, b, ...

It does not depend on a=a. And I have previously, several times, mentioned the domain of discourse. And yes, it is taken as granted in some first-orde...

Ok, I will grant that it is an answer. But it is an answer that is both irrelevant and wrong. So it's not a good answer.

Sure. But we can use logic in fiction. Bongo, if you have a point to make, please go ahead and make it.

Have you revised this view?

Here's an odd exchange: Not only is this not an answer, it's not even on the same topic; but also, a=a is an extension of first-order calculus; and ce...

Why not set up a extensional, referentially transparent domain that is Tolkien's world?

Cheers. I don't see much there that undermines my view of philosophy as conceptual clarification, especially given the conclusion. Perhaps I missed so...

OK - so let's drop "beingness". ...and why should we fall back to this anachronistic greek interpretation when we have better ones in our formal logic...

Language games take place in space, too. Space has an essence independent of time? Essences are a very odd thing, modal or otherwise. There's much to ...

Yeah, we work out what space is by moving around in it. But is there a preference for temporality, or is that a misunderstanding on my part? And if so...

Nuh, you lost me entirely. Not sure what the relevance is. Might be my blood sugar - I'm going to have breakfast. Cheers.

Bah. Replies are arriving faster than I can write. Sure, they are both talking about use. But @"Xtrix" seems to want to give a primacy to certain aspe...

Here: Apparently yielding nothing is something @"Xtrix" and I have in common.

My generation read Sartre to the same a ends. I have admitted some sympathy for that view.

Is that a lost "not"?

...and the rest is special pleading. The point was not to present an alternative but to critique the very idea of a core subject for philosophy. I've ...

Another example of the sort of reply I criticised above. Quoting the sacred texts without interpretation is as good as useless to we heathens. What pr...

No, it's A good answer. I'd have been disappointed in anything else. @"Srap Tasmaner" was looking for something more in the analytic tradition, I'm ha...