Banno

:rofl: Cheers, then.

Could god not exist? If you think not, then you have claimed that god exists necessarily. But you claim there are no necessary truths. So are you obli...

This discussion has forced you into mere repetition. Let's try a different direction. Could god not exist?

But I don't...?

What? Indeed.

My answer to this will be much the same as for several other questions around the fora at present: philosophy concerns itself primary with conceptual ...

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc ...

Indeed, it is a point of some discussion. The usefulness of the part possible worlds play in possible world semantics is undeniable. Except apparently...

Read Possible Worlds Again, which sense of necessity are you using? It seems that you cannot use an extensional semantics.

In logic, a statement is necessarily true if it is true in every possible world. But see Varieties of Modality for other uses. Now, which sense are yo...

No, that's not how possibility and necessity are related. You left out a negation.

If you might have written that sentence differently, then you agree that it was not necessary that you write it as you did. Yet But you cannot see thi...

Tell me, do you suppose you might have written that sentence differently?

Gotta hand it to you, too, Meta, your grasp of logic is quite disconcerting. Have you met @"Bartricks"?

Point is, of course, that you do understand ?p and ~?~p. You pretend not to for rhetorical purposes. But here it is in English, so as to undermine you...

:grin: Always a good rhetorical strategy when someone starts to draw uncomfortable implications from your OP. Nice.

Indeed.

And again, I am thankful to @"Bartricks", for without his diatribe I might not have found this work on Logical Nihilism, nor this on Inconsistent Math...

Tell me, @"Bartricks", what would convince you that your argument is wrong?

Understood. I'm not just telling you, I am demonstrating it: All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic. The Law of ...

Not quite. Geach sets your view up as the first form of omnipotence, the ability to do absolutely everything. "As Descartes himself remarked, nothing ...

All theorems of propositional calculus are necessary theorems of modal logic. The Law of Noncontradiction is a theorem of propositional calculus. Ther...

Indeed, that's what renders it unassailable. Pointing out any further contradictions is beside the point. As I understand him, he thinks LNC is true, ...

Peter Geach has a relevant essay on the topic - Omnipotence. Even if one accepts the idea that philosophers do not need to read philosophy, one might ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIyKmqEdgR4

Yeah, that's the usual explanation, and it has this singular advantage over Bart's illogic: it is coherent.

What do you suppose is the relation between this thread and 's You don't need to read philosophy to be a philosopher?

That's the right question.

Bart and I had this out three months ago on Necessity and God Bart's contradiction is in asserting that the LNC is true in all possible situations but...

Here's a plan: "Further technological breakthroughs": 15% "Global Technology Trends": 15% Buying emissions from someone else: 20% Fifty percent wishfu...

:wink: In the literature. That's my point. You wanna find out, you godda do the readin'.

Yep. One can do philosophy without having much of an acquaintance with the philosophical literature. The result, evident on these fora, is the repetit...

Interesting post.

Well said. Now count the crescents.

That's not right. See 2. The Significance of the Issue

Folk get stuck on §43: "...the meaning of a word is its use in the language", and understand Wittgenstein as equating meaning and use (@"Olivier5"). B...

The methods used in the PI is more valuable than the theory expounded. noted the place given to questions; Wittgenstein is in a dialogue with himself ...

Let's be clear. Everyone else reads the sections around §48 as showing something like that there are no ultimate simples, that the standards we use fo...

I should have known better than to engage. Enjoy the view up the garden path.

He presented the solution, but you didn't notice and have gone off on your own. tTat's just not what is being claimed. And this is the very point I ma...

In dropping talk of meaning in favour of talk about use, we demote stating rules in favour of enacting them.

...that is, to obey a rule is to act; but the act governs the rule.

And neither @"Sam26" nor @"StreetlightX" is wrong. En passant was not always a move is chess. It was once possible to move the King like a knight, onc...

The temptation is to think of language games as discreet, and hence in terms of explicit rules. A few things mitigate against this. The rule is ultima...

Not inappropriate; I was just correcting any misconstrule.

She certainly was a Thomist, but I've not noted anything by her on the topic of essence. So I do not know how she dealt with essence. Let me know if y...

Why? As I, and pretty much everyone else, read this section, we see that what Wittgenstein has shown is that there can be no "principal criterion of i...

Care with the attribution - the quote in my last was from @"Antony Nickles", not I. It was a thread on much the same topic, but apparently before it's...