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

Srap Tasmaner

Comments

Have you already read Eric Wolf's Europe and the people without history?
July 27, 2017 at 06:21
Here's what I've been working on... Imagine students taking a standardized test. Their goal is to select answers that will be marked correct. In selec...
July 27, 2017 at 06:01
Here's some more chess analogizing... There's an idea known as "the move the position demands." Among more accomplished players, this is the maxim tha...
July 27, 2017 at 04:52
Continuing my metaphor, one sense of "doing the work" would be to say you have to go all the way down the alley to find out if it's a dead end, but on...
July 26, 2017 at 20:00
I can see how you might take what I wrote that way, as if the goal were just to avoid mistakes and avoid failure. I don't think I really brought out h...
July 26, 2017 at 05:57
Something else I remember Ryle saying, though I can never remember where, might be relevant here; it was something like this: there's an idea that phi...
July 26, 2017 at 04:40
I am happy to provide a supporting reference, the first example Ryle gives in The Concept of Mind to explain his newly coined term "category-mistake":...
July 26, 2017 at 04:23
Every discussion about existence ends up being a discussion about negative existentials! But I agree. And I stand by what I said earlier: Frege makes ...
July 26, 2017 at 02:17
No, the pair of conditionals was (1) sufficient condition and (2) necessary condition, so the other way to say that is "All x are y" and "Only x are y...
July 25, 2017 at 19:45
I largely agree, but only that (1) is probably more of an insult. If "All men are fools" is on the table, why not "All women are fools" too? Subtlety ...
July 25, 2017 at 19:10
But it does follow from (2) that no women are: 1. If a man then a fool. 2. If a fool then a man. I still say the implied comparison in (1) doesn't hav...
July 25, 2017 at 18:23
Then admittedly I'm not your guy. Works for me, though. I enjoyed the analysis and it's something I had never thought about. I fully expect to use it ...
July 25, 2017 at 02:57
Yeah that's Russell's solution, to take the name as an abbreviated description. I think we also want a way to talk about fiction (hypothesis, supposit...
July 25, 2017 at 02:42
Not helpful. Russell would take all of these as false, but not as predicating anything of Vulcan or Pegasus or Santa. How do you predicate, truly or f...
July 25, 2017 at 01:51
For "Ga" to be a wff, doesn't a have to be an object in your domain of discourse? What sense can be made of asserting "Ga" if you don't already know t...
July 24, 2017 at 19:43
I don't know about the insult business, but I think you do have a kind of point here. There's an implicit comparison between two groups. Let's say all...
July 24, 2017 at 06:13
I think that may be the wrong approach. It's a little like saying, "There does not exist a predicate (x) in language (S) which has the meaning, 'and' ...
July 24, 2017 at 04:30
July 24, 2017 at 04:06
Hmmm. To me science makes more sense the other way around, where you have some idea what your domain is -- and you might get that wrong and have to ch...
July 24, 2017 at 03:45
... because certainty is a different issue entirely from knowledge ... ... and from truth. The Lucky Schoolboy is our two-for-one special today: Your ...
July 24, 2017 at 03:33
You really don't need all this business about changing the meanings of "truth" and "knowledge." That horse has lost before it even gets out of the sta...
July 24, 2017 at 03:12
That's candor, not truth.
July 24, 2017 at 02:59
Read again what I said. We may, as theorists, describe something using propositions, without claiming that what we so describe has propositional form....
July 23, 2017 at 15:08
No.
July 23, 2017 at 13:41
Hmmmmm. Yeah, "that" doesn't do any of that. That's you. (English doesn't care if it's there or not.) Believe it or not, "S knows that P" is just an o...
July 23, 2017 at 05:39
A leaf twists, turns, and flutters in the wind, showing us now this side, now that, its color shifting as its angle to the sun changes, but the whole ...
July 22, 2017 at 03:04
I would invite you to consider the Toy Story example I presented earlier. Buzz and Woody actually mean exactly the same thing by the word "flying" and...
July 22, 2017 at 02:46
It's not a "category error." (Btw, the phrase you want, the one Ryle coined, is "category mistake.") It's also not a use/mention violation. "S knows t...
July 21, 2017 at 03:25
Do you mean to say that under the same scheme of interpretation, some statement P could be false and someone know that P? For example, "I am at work t...
July 20, 2017 at 20:43
Sorry, I can't figure out where you demonstrated this. Would you mind linking the post or posts?
July 20, 2017 at 01:01
I'm really glad you brought up Gettier -- the more I think about it the more relevant it is to the debate we've been having here.
July 19, 2017 at 23:03
I have seriously mixed feelings about it. If you report someone's utterance (or potential utterance) in the exact words they used (or would use), we p...
July 19, 2017 at 22:26
All good. We are an example to us all.
July 19, 2017 at 22:12
Just didn't want you to think I had ignored that part of your post, even though I wasn't really going to address it. Maybe my choice of words was poor...
July 19, 2017 at 22:10
Take it easy, man. I'm really not trying to pick a fight with you. I joined in not to bully you but to try to support Michael's point. You disagree. F...
July 19, 2017 at 22:03
BTW, Gettier case number 1 did not involve disjunction -- it's sort of a faulty definite description, sort of. You believe X will get the job (when it...
July 19, 2017 at 21:57
Well a convention is not something one imposes -- do as you like. I'm just telling you it's been standard practice in Anglo-American philosophy for mo...
July 19, 2017 at 21:42
One of the things about use/mention I'm ever so slightly uncomfortable about is that in a sense it's a claim that there is nothing but use, and that b...
July 19, 2017 at 21:37
There is a kind of connection to the argument here. Gettier cases are examples of epistemic luck -- you have a belief, it's true, it's got something t...
July 19, 2017 at 20:58
It's been too long since I read Saussure, so I'm not sure what separating involves here and if that's what Michael and I think we're doing. I might ev...
July 19, 2017 at 20:42
You might note that I wasn't addressing you here.
July 19, 2017 at 19:21
We can also say this: If no one knows n = 0, then n ? 0. If n ? 0, then someone knows that n ? 0. Who is this person who knows the cup is not empty?
July 19, 2017 at 18:19
It's a convention. We can talk about a thing by using its name; if we want to talk about the thing's name instead of the thing itself, we put the name...
July 19, 2017 at 15:45
Absolutely. I wouldn't conflate knowing-how and knowing-that, just assumed we were talking about propositional knowledge. Well, sure, "know" is a fact...
July 19, 2017 at 15:26
I keep trying to help you but you're not putting the work in, so this is my last time. It's always already the case that ¬p and p cannot both be true....
July 19, 2017 at 02:42
Knowledge has this form: For some subject S and some proposition P, S knows that P. Truth has this form: For some proposition P, P is true.
July 19, 2017 at 02:27
Sure. But antirealism is the position he gets to, not where he starts. (And it's not necessarily universal.) And the getting to is mainly through his ...
July 18, 2017 at 22:44
Right, right. I see I was accidentally dissing McDowell. I was trying to stay kinda neutral, but back of my mind I was thinking about Dummett's idea t...
July 18, 2017 at 22:17
This is the thing about perceptual reports -- "Either I see a truck or I am experiencing an hallucination" -- that sort of thing? Is there another dis...
July 18, 2017 at 21:49
I think this is right and what I have been, too indirectly, trying to suggest. For instance, even if the truth of a sentence is actually the truth of ...
July 18, 2017 at 21:04