You are viewing the historical archive of The Philosophy Forum.
For current discussions, visit the live forum.
Go to live forum

Banno

Comments

For example...
January 12, 2019 at 04:30
Because sorting out what is valid and what is not valid is what logic does.
January 12, 2019 at 01:21
Not too sure what you are saying. That water is H?O is surely not a priori?
January 12, 2019 at 01:18
Happy for you to correct me.
January 12, 2019 at 01:17
OK - is, that H?O is water, a priori? I wouldn't have thought so. Analytic, necessary - but a posteriori.
January 12, 2019 at 01:14
Yes - I guess that's right. SO do we move on?
January 12, 2019 at 00:47
But... names, variables, and so on can be given an interpretation. So logic does define its elements. As is validity. ...of the logical system being u...
January 12, 2019 at 00:45
No. I think the posited position of the identity theorist is that the brain state exists if and only if the pain exists. Supposing otherwise would fal...
January 12, 2019 at 00:40
Whether B theory is right or not, you do not know what you will do next. Hence, you must choose. So what's the problem?
January 12, 2019 at 00:38
Agree with what you say about cause. But we say that Hesperus is Phosphorus - not that there is no Hesperus, only Phosphorus...
January 12, 2019 at 00:19
:smile: That's it. Thanks.
January 12, 2019 at 00:17
But then: It seems I must be mis-reading Kripke; that he is saying that it will not suffice to claim that 'B caused A' is contingent. It must be neces...
January 11, 2019 at 23:59
That water is H?O is something we discovered - it is a posteriori, and synthetic. Kripke shows that, that water is H?O is true in all possible situati...
January 11, 2019 at 23:18
The following seems to be the key paragraph for understanding Kripke's rejection of any form of the identity thesis with regard to consciousness. Now ...
January 11, 2019 at 23:09
Put simply, he invites us to reconsider necessity and possibility in a slightly different way. He thus re-introduced them into analytic philosophy aft...
January 11, 2019 at 22:35
Fixing a rigid designator is just using a name. How that name came to be used to talk about its referent is a quit seperate issue to how it is used to...
January 11, 2019 at 22:29
Not at all. It is a simple matter to move from orthogonal to perspective; two drawings of the same thing. Similarly it's simple to move from the prese...
January 11, 2019 at 22:09
OK. Agreed.
January 11, 2019 at 00:25
Oh, OK - it's the "know" that threw me. I don't see how a parent could logically justify the name they choose for their child.
January 11, 2019 at 00:01
They somehow deduce the name? Not sure I follow that. First, convince me that it has to be one or the other: a priori or a posteriori.
January 10, 2019 at 23:51
Orthogonal vs. perspective, which is correct and why? http://db-in.com/images/projection_example.gif
January 10, 2019 at 23:46
Apparently. Tell me about it.
January 10, 2019 at 21:58
If I am going to treat Kripke's book as setting out an acceptable approach to grammar, then I'm not that interested in some sot of substance ontology....
January 10, 2019 at 21:25
I'm not sure what that would mean...
January 10, 2019 at 21:19
Publish it. Change modal logic forever.
January 10, 2019 at 21:08
Sentence, then. That sentence is about Nixon.
January 10, 2019 at 21:07
Well, they might. I'm not sure that Kripke thinks they must; and I certainly don't. I just don't see for a dubbing or baptism. The use of the name wil...
January 10, 2019 at 11:14
I can do that. Easy.
January 10, 2019 at 10:09
No, they are not. "Nixon might have had a different name" is about Nixon. "The person named 'Nixon' might have had a different name" is about a person...
January 10, 2019 at 09:51
Thanks! Yes, that's the core.
January 10, 2019 at 07:04
No. "Nixon" refers to Nixon. "The man named 'Nixon'" refers to the man with that name. That he has that name is a contingent fact about Nixon. Yes; bu...
January 10, 2019 at 06:57
Nixon may have had another name. Then he would not be the person whose name is Nixon. Hence they are distinct. It's in the book.
January 10, 2019 at 06:18
something has to go undefied. Why not time? What is it you don’t know about time?
January 10, 2019 at 04:51
Just introduce a bill to remove everybody's rakes. Threatening to take away the god-given freedom to rake a forest or grassland will result in a renew...
January 10, 2019 at 03:20
And Kripke showed that these two categories were insufficient, given a decent grammar of modality. That is, there are necessary a posteriori facts. Se...
January 10, 2019 at 02:49
Clairvoyance?
January 10, 2019 at 02:37
What?
January 10, 2019 at 01:48
And yet you replied, later.
January 10, 2019 at 01:30
Absolutely not. It contradicts itself in asserting its certainty.
January 10, 2019 at 00:52
This isn't like being certain you have five fingers. It's more like being certain the bishop moves diagonally. Validity is defined by logic. How could...
January 10, 2019 at 00:51
Apocryphal has it that there are a group of First Nations folk in Australia who don't see time as a line, but as walking backwards. You can see where ...
January 10, 2019 at 00:46
Tell you later. In the mean time, consider that you already grasp that meaning, as is evidenced by your ability to make use of it in your everyday wor...
January 10, 2019 at 00:45
And that's one issue with Feyerabend; incommensurability. Davidson's argument against incommensurability, in On the very idea of a conceptual schema, ...
January 10, 2019 at 00:14
Here's the rub. Popper, who is deservedly admired, set out a logic for science that is pretty neat. But the problem with logic, as Feyerabend showed, ...
January 10, 2019 at 00:05
Footnote 74 draws attention to the obvious distinction between a corpse and a person; that the person is a body with a particular structure, and a cor...
January 09, 2019 at 23:50
Then there is a discussion of the cartesian distinction between mind and body (p.144-146). Kripke argues that the distinction must be taken seriously....
January 09, 2019 at 23:14
There's a rejoinder that he is restricting the discussion to type-type identities. Now at one stage earlier - I'm sorry, the post is lost in the confu...
January 09, 2019 at 23:02
Let's do that, then. SO we get to p.144, and identity. Three different ones: 1. Identity of mind with body 2. Identity of (for example) pain with a ce...
January 09, 2019 at 22:52
@"schopenhauer1", see how the account of the name "chess" does not rely on a substance? So I am reluctant to conclude that there is a connection betwe...
January 09, 2019 at 22:09
Any and all.
January 09, 2019 at 21:58