There seems to be an assumption amongst some folk here that we have to understand what water is before we can begin to make use of the word "water". T...
There are other examples we can use. Hesperus=Phosphorus is common; concluding that the star seen in the evening is the same object as that seen later...
He visited us here, long ago. I asked him about that aphorism, and if I recall correctly he expressed some regret towards it, not becasue it was wrong...
I'll take this a step further and say that at least arguably, supposing that analytic methods are exclusive to Analytic philosophy is to misunderstand...
Events in the past are not necessarily true. They still might have been otherwise. You might not have written the thread to which this is a response, ...
Well, they are very good tools. And used not so much for authority as clarity and coherence. I stand by that, and the rest, even if you pull funny fac...
Here's the thing. Supose I come across the One True Explanation of Everything, and I convince everyone else that I'm right - after all, if it is the O...
Trouble with this is that the folk you and Tim are are fond of citing are making use of formal modal logic and possible world semantics. Please unders...
Yeah. But perhaps what we can agree on is that there are ambiguities in asking "what if water had none of the characteristics it actually has?" that n...
Not likely. I rather think his influence will outweigh your heart beat. Weighing in on "But there are either facts about what is "truly more useful" o...
Sometimes it is better to go with a clear stipulation than to muddle around in ambiguity. If what you mean by "one sentence explanation of essences yo...
Let's emphasis what is being argued. It's is not that there cannot be one monolithic Explanation of Everything, one explanation that encompass in a co...
Take a look at the contents of the SEP article on Metaphysics. It contains two sections: and It does this becasue what metaphysics is changed somewhat...
Modal logic became involved in this thread as soon as it was supposed that things have essences, and we asked what an essence is. There is a clear way...
, is it worth my time to reply? There's a lot in your post, which I appreciate, but as a result there are multiple issues to discuss. Is there a point...
Yep. I'd caution agains attempting to show that there is an inconsistency in Meta's logic. He may simple add ad hoc hypotheses in order to escape. But...
, , you have been continuing your discussion here, independently of thel parallel discussion of modality. I'd like to bring the two back together. If ...
Yep. A ways back. Perhaps he hasn't changed his mind. I'd take a different path, more in line with looking at use, but taking on some of Searle's othe...
I'll pay that. On the proviso that their disagreement is coherent and well defended, and that they talk to the criticisms presented. As indeed, you do...
No. But I did. The result? You can happily indulge in the idiosyncratic use of "philosophical perspective" that you envision, but others need not agre...
In some possible world, water has none of the characteristics it has in our world. But we know that water is H?O, so that characteristic could not be ...
Thanks. So we have a group of distinct, though not unrelated items: actual, real, existing, being... Possible worlds give us a neat way to talk about ...
Yep. Some folk - @"Wayfarer" might not mind me including him here - make a leap of faith to some spiritual position or other. To my eye it's unjustifi...
This is the question of reference? How is it that "water" refers to water, and nothing else? The big change in thinking that was consequent on Possibl...
Yes! Poor locker room design is the issue. Why do we have locker rooms that force us to differentiate on the basis of our genitalia? If the issue is m...
Same question: puzzling that other folk should have a say in which loo someone chooses to use at all. I blame urinals. They are the reason the cue is ...
I went back over the thread in order to work out why we are talking about modal logic when the topic is "What is real?". There were posts from many fo...
Cost a lot less? Taken up less time? Been less of an embuggerance? Doesn't it seem odd to you that in "our" culture, issues of manners are taken to th...
Don't you find it unsettling that this issue needed to go to your highest court to be settled? Might have been simpler if folk just butted out of othe...
yet... You said that you are not willing to put any effort into understanding modal logic. So... ...misunderstands modal logic, but in order to see wh...
You've made your mind up about modal logic, before you understood it. As a result you are "unavailable for learning". Not much point in my continuing ...
...on the counterpart interpretation. If one accepts rigid designation, then there are things that are the very same in different possible worlds. Whi...
Not so much, it seems. But also, if what I have said erroneous, as you supose, then they are not my errors, since all I have done here is present the ...
We don't know where, say, that the value of G (6.6743 x 10^-11 m³ kg?¹ s?²) may have been slightly different, sits in the diagram above - a logical po...
I never though otherwise. I wasn't aware that this was a potential bone of contention. Simply becasue that is the argument I was pursuing. I'm not goi...
Might be worth a new thread. Recently, in another thread, @"Hanover" drew attention to a SEP article on the topic. But as many folk - present company ...
Keeping us on the main page highlighted the calibre of the brilliant folk on this thread, no doubt leading many casual visitors to become members. But...
Comments