Banno

I set out a bit of an explanation fo "=" yesterday. Here it is again. A part of analytic method is to use formal logic to model natural language. The ...

"=" is very well defined in both maths and logic, but cannot be adequately defined in merely syllogistic logic, which cannot deal with relations.

I have the article. Given the confusions here, I'm not keen on moving on to it quite yet - it presumes quite a bit about the way we might view belief,...

Much of the confusion here seems the result of an over dependence on syllogistic logic, which cannot deal adequately with relations.

Are you happy with that explanation of "essence"? I'm not.

Sure. I enjoyed the OP. As a bit of history it's not problematic. The whole framing here is problematic. It presumes a subject/object dichotomy, then ...

's Op is excellent. I wasn't going to enter into this conversation since it's stuff he and I have been over multiple times. I can't see how idealism i...

You can't surmise belief from action? Why not?

Nice. Prima Facie Davidson might reject this, since it implies a separation between schema L and world W. We talk about beliefs becasue we sometimes f...

Sure. But not Davidson, nor any one else under consideration here. Arn't we here considering only those who do attribute belief?

Yes, and arguably neither is Superman in 'Lois is ready enough to say "Superman can fly"', that that sentence is not about Superman, but about somethi...

Perhaps it would be better to say that coherence is stable? Incoherence seems to imply that something is missing, that someone is mistaken, or perhaps...

oh yea indeed. I’ve spent time with one or two.

Isn't the move from to A supposed substitution? What else could it be?

:wink: The Jesuits are a way to keep the smart people in the Church.

I'd be surprised to hear Catholics have embraces Spinoza.

A behaviourist might say "Superman is Kent; Lois will ascent to 'Superman can fly' but not to 'Kent can fly', and so we can infer that she does not be...

The thread is now very messy. Quine showed that Frege's solution didn't work, and told us not to try to substitute in such circumstances. Not really a...

Might leave you theists to sort this stuff out between yourselves.

I don't much care enough to read it - I probably should.

It's the name, yes - although he was buried as a Catholic... It's a mystery.

Your added quote is a repetition of the problem, not an explanation. It remains that it is unclear how we are to make sense of "The Son—in the Father ...

Excellent post. I'm struck by how much this resembles the roughly Wittgensteinian view, that meaning, in life as in language, is what we do, the use t...

For "is", see the extensive explanation just given, above. For "God", I have no firm opinions on the issue, and will happily copy your usage. The elep...

Well, I know what I mean... and the thread is now pretty much about trying to make sense of what you mean. I've now set out at length, not just how I ...

Are you now denying that Jesus is God?

A little bit more about "=". After all, if I'm accused of not understanding it, then if I set out how I do understand it, others will be able to show ...

To that we should add @"Hanover"'s criticism. If meaning really is just use, then maybe Trinitarian language "works" within its proper religious conte...

The danger is reading "Jesus is God" as that Jesus is one of the things that is God - and, since other things may also be god, accidentally committing...

It might be worth setting out how "is" might be understood. A part of analytic method is to use formal logic to model natural language. The bits and p...

Thanks for the change of pace. "Atheist" is not an epithet that I would apply to myself so readily as it might appear. But we can let that go for now....

You have to understand that such stuff just looks muddled to me. I don't give much more import to the Son coming from the Father than I do to Pegasus ...

Pick the lawyer.

But we make set theory work using ZF, dropping the idea that just any definable collection is a set.

I fed the last page into Claude and received the following review: Sycophantic twaddle, of course, but amusing nonetheless.

I don't see how entertaining time in the equation actually helps. But cheers - there is an honesty to your replies not seen in Leon's. It's not my aim...

I probably should just let Leon keep digging the hole he is standing in.

Oh, Leon. Yes, that's how "=" works. And yes, it follows that you cannot be using "is" in "Jesus is God" to mean "=", and hence you must be using it a...

And when we question that, the theologians point out, as Tim did earlier, that God transcends creation, and so any analogy will ultimately fail. Yep. ...

What rot. Of course if A=B and A is a number, it follows that B is a number. That's not about numbers, but about identity. it's not about genus, but i...

You seem to think that an explanation. It isn't. The transitivity of identity doesn't require relata to "belong to the same genus" - it's a purely log...

Bob has been explicit that he thinks the Trinity can be derived within natural philosophy - without revelation. He pretty much claims, way back, what ...

Yep, definitely waning. Nearly done here. :wink:

Yeah, all clear. A good approach. I've looked, but have not been able to locate a good account of opacity. The IEP article is framed around Frege, and...

:rofl: Indeed.

If I misread your lack of further comment, that'd be pleasing. Is there then any issue here that is left hanging, once the scope is sorted? The guts o...

Apocryphal has it that the gent in question was Sartre.

Hmm. Explains a lot. Regularity is important. More fibre might help.

A shame you agree with Leon's misrepresentations of my position. It's not as if the problem's not widley recognised:

At least you are thinking. A good thing. You seem to think that I think that language cannot be about the world. So I'll point out again that language...