« Concupiscence | Main | The Consolations of Philosophy for the Middle-Aged »

Wednesday, November 15, 2017

Comments

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

My meta meta-puzzle is why you found the meta-puzzle puzzling. You give a reasonably good summary of the puzzle as I explained it to you (by email), and as you say ‘The limbs of the dyad are logical contradictories. And yet both limbs are very plausible’, which is the very essense of a puzzle. I quarrel slightly with ‘the 'Socrates' used in the second conjunct has the very same sense as the 'Socrates' mentioned in the first conjunct’. My formulation was ‘The sense of the second sentence is precisely to convey the identity of its subject with that of the first.’

But in answer to your question whether you have finally grasped my puzzle, yes.

>> If he returns an affirmative answer to this question, then we can proceed. If and only if.
He has returned an affirmative answer to this question, therefore we can proceed.

I have expressed your puzzle in 'canonical form,' that of an aporetic polyad. The nwextstep is to ask whether it is a genuine puzzle or rather a pseudo-puzzle, one easily dissolved as opposed to solved.

Well, there is a worry whether 'in the same sense' is being used in the same sense in both limbs.

A. A proper name cannot apply to different individuals in the same sense. (J. S. Mill)

B. A proper name can apply to different individuals in the same sense.

More later.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Google Search Engine

My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2008

Categories

Categories

December 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