Yes, I know. That's what I've been trying to explain to you. That a thing is defined "on its own terms" rather than in terms of "whether it is thought...
There is a logical distinction between my pain and "my pain". The former is an intolerable sensation and the latter is a phrase. To accept this logica...
Go to "You", click "Edit Profile", and then "Edit Thumbnail". Highlight the area you'd like to have as the thumbnail and click "Save". It looks like y...
Anti-realism doesn't entail that we have true statements about reality that don't reflect reality. It entails that reality isn't to be understood in r...
I don't see how it's explained in terms of some ontology. And even if it was, how does explaining it in terms of an anti-realist ontology make it real...
What you mean here is that the coherency theory of truth doesn't have apples existing in the realist sense as a prerequisite. And so your criticism of...
Yes, and I think that this depends on the nature of truth. If one accepts the coherence theory of truth then the truth of "chairs exist" depends on li...
I don't think I'd consider it a realist theory of reference. It's effectively a disquotational theory of reference; "chairs" refers to chairs. It's a ...
I didn't mean to suggest that you had. That was more of a general comment to those who think otherwise. Rejects ontological independence of language a...
No. "Frodo" refers to a fictional hobbit, this fictional hobbit is not a word, and so "Frodo" doesn't refer to a word. Does this entail realism regard...
No it isn't. Realist ontology is a position regarding the ontological status of things, not a position regarding the logical distinction between sente...
That's because in those cases I'm specifically talking about reference in the context of using words to talk about things that we can't see. It's slig...
Yes, so it does more than simply argue for a logical distinction between "Frodo" and Frodo. No it doesn't. There are plenty of anti-realists (myself i...
That's not (metaphysical) realism. Anti-realism is quite capable of distinguishing between speech and the things spoken about. "Frodo" is a name and F...
But disquotationalism doesn't say that if chairs exist in that world then "chairs exist" is true in that world; it says that if chairs exist in that w...
This doesn't address disquotationalism. Disquotationalism is a linguistic account of the role that the word "truth" plays in our language game. In Eng...
But in making that claim about the linguistic object one is making that claim about the chair. When we say that "the chair exists" is true we are sayi...
If chairs still existed then "chairs still existed" is true and if "chairs still existed" is true then chairs still existed. You seem to be saying tha...
"Chairs exist" is true because chairs exist."Unicorns exist" is not true because unicorns do not exist. That's all disquotation shows us. Being an emp...
I don't see how "if the chair exists then it is something in the world which is empirically verifiable" follows from "'the chair exists' is true iff t...
Sure, but are moral facts the sort of facts that can lead to measurable consequences if we act in light of false moral beliefs? For example, if I fals...
Yes, it's about the apples. But how does one talk about the apples? By talking (and understanding), nothing more. The point I am trying to make is tha...
Shall we place bets on how long till blue blood turns up to remind us that white people are shoe leather and that the old Queens of England were black...
How do you talk to me about the actual apples on your table? You use certain words which I understand. It seems to me that speech and writing (and the...
Well, if there was indeed a contract that said that donations or subscriptions provide protection against being banned then it would break the contrac...
The problem is that people can justifiably believe something to be true that is, in fact, false (assuming realism, which we are in the case). So there...
Comments