« Plantinga Reviews Philip Kitcher, Life After Faith: The Case for Secular Humanism | Main | Toleration Extremism: Notes on John Stuart Mill »

Tuesday, January 13, 2015

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Thank you for the corrections.

>>applies to them [to it].

This amused me. I was attempting to be 'gender neutral'. I was considering a domain of human individuals, so 'it' is wrong. But to say 'he' would imply that human individuals cannot be female. I suppose I should have said 'her'.

>>6. If a proposition is Russellian, then its truth supervenes upon that unity of its constituents that makes it a proposition as opposed to a mere aggregate of its constituents. (Just as a sentence is not a list of its terms, a proposition is not an aggregate of its constituents.)
7. If truth supervenes upon proposition-making unity of constituents, then there are no false propositions.
<<

I didn't follow this part entirely. Suppose 'Socrates is sitting' is true. Then we have an aggregate of mind-independent objects: Socrates and the entity corresponding to 'is sitting'. You say that truth is more than just the aggregation, correct? Why can't we just say that when Socrates stands up, then Socrates remains (obviously), and the entity corresponding to 'is sittting' remains, but truth has disappeared from them.

It's probably 'supervenes' that I don't understand. It's a widely used but vague technical term.

Also, and I have asked you this before, where does this leave us? If [genuine singular] reference is a relation, it must either relate the term to the object via a mediating attribute, or directly to the object. But genuinely singular terms do not relate to the object via any attribute. There is no 'haecceity attribute'.

So where does this leave us? There clearly are genuinely singular terms, i.e. terms that tell you which object we are talking about, without giving any other information about the object. So how do they do this?

What's wrong with you Ed, are you going all Pee Cee and squishy on me? First, 'he' does not imply what you said it does. Second, even if it did, how would 'her' be an improvement?

Honestly, Ed, you are a nice guy and all, but I really don't see the point of discussing this with you. Part of the problem is that you don't know the literature. In an earlier thread you kicked up dust about mental acts, demonstrating that you haven't read any of the extensive literature relevant to them. And now you show that you are unaware of a standard criticism of Russellian propositions, namely, that they cannot be false.

But worst of all, you simply ignored my argument to the conclusion that there are no genuinely singular terms as you defined them, and merely asserted the negation of my thesis!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Google Search Engine

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

March 2017

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad