But the premise is that we can imagine something greater. So we have two different concepts: G1 and G2. How do these concepts differ such that G2 is g...
That's just wrong. p ? q is true if both p and q are true or if p is false. See the truth table. So as I have twice brought up, this is an example of ...
He says that the store-clerk is a logician who talks about implications being true if the premise (actually "antecedent") is false. He's referring to ...
p is "You have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk" and q is "He will give you the diamond". p ? q is equivalent to ¬p ? q. ¬p is "You have not given $5,0...
It doesn't need to be logically dependent. The following is a true material conditional: If my name is Michael then London is the capital city of Engl...
It's: 1) You have not given $5,000 to the sales-clerk, or 2) He will give you the diamond 1) is true, so 2) needn't be. No it isn't. It's saying that ...
Then all the argument shows is that a being who is imagined to be real and have God's properties is greater than a being who is imagined to be imagina...
In 3) we conceive of a being who has God's properties and exists in reality. According to 5) we can conceive of something greater than this. So what a...
@"Agustino" 5) doesn't make sense. There's no conceptual difference between the Being in 3) and the supposed "greater" Being in 5). In both cases we c...
The same is also true of the claim that we're rewarded iff we believe and punished iff we don't believe. If we're going to assume that this is true th...
Another way to look at it: p ? q is logically equivalent to ¬p ? q, so "if you have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk then he will give you the diamond"...
It's not a contradiction. It's the standard truth table for the material conditional: p q p ? q T T T T F F F T T F F T Where p is false, p ? q is tru...
As the above truth table shows, "if p then q" is true if "p" is false. p ? You have given $5,000 to the sales-clerk q ? He will give you the diamond S...
No. Descartes was a methodological skeptic, not a philosophical skeptic. His approach was to scrutinize all claims to knowledge, not to argue that kno...
Your TV opens? You sure it isn't a cardboard box and you just have a squatter living inside, shouting out insane nonsense? I can see how you might con...
And as a bit of trivia, it happened because the actor (Ben Stiller) forgot his lines and so just repeated his previous one. They kept it in because it...
It's a Zoolander reference. The main character, who's an idiot, asks another character why male models are being brainwashed into being assassins, and...
'cause this isn't just a philosophical discussion on the limits of free speech, but potential criminality (or at least the sort of thing that can draw...
I'm willing to risk £100 buying cryptocurrencies on the off-chance that I could make a profit. He was protesting that guy's arrest by repeating the be...
I'm not willing to risk jail just so that I can joke about killing people, and unlike Voltaire, I wouldn't die to defend someone's right to free speec...
The form: . X is Y. And, ordinarily, it is appropriate for the adjective ("true") to be predicated of the type of thing that the subject is (a sentenc...
I'm saying that clearly it's a risky thing to do and with real consequences, so it's not the sort of thing one should even joke about (unless one is w...
Tarski actually intended for that. From The Semantic Conception of Truth: This is why I asked you before if your view was closer to Ramsey's or Tarski...
You said that "True(x)" and "x" have the same truth value. I assume "True(x)" means "'x' is true"? So "'x' is true" and "x" have the same truth value....
And what does it mean for the sentence to be the case? Again, unlike something like "it is raining", it isn't explained by referring to some empirical...
The T-schema is an attempt to define truth. What do we mean when we say that a sentence is true? To say that "'T' is true" is true if "T" is true, whi...
Comments