An apparent dig at Austin...? — Banno
Ryle does preface his articulation of the idea with "roughly", so it wouldn't be surprising to find deficiencies.I've been unable to follow what Ryle means here by "general" and "singular". — Banno
But I can't work out a similar tactic for the lunar eclipse. The best I can do is a gesture. The eclipse is predictable, but does not yet exist (is not actual). When it happens, it will become real/actual and when it is over it will have been real/actual.I'm bothered about someone having a heart attack, and getting to hospital where they prevent his death. Can we not say that his death was averted? Perhaps we can say that it was averted last Sunday, but not that his death last Sunday was averted. — Ludwig V
If you do a search you will find several articles that credit Zeno. — Fooloso4
Because of the lack of volition?But I can't work out a similar tactic for the lunar eclipse. — Ludwig V
Since Kripke, It ain't necessarily so.If the link is causal, it is empirical. Which means it is not necessary. — Ludwig V
Well, if my attempt involves ontological mystery, I'll give up on it.I don't think talking in this way invokes any ontological mystery. — Banno
I'm glad that you don't think that it is like Hume's failure of the sun to rise tomorrow morning, which, it seems, will affect nothing else.I think it true that there will be an eclipse in March, 2025. — Banno
I've been thinking about precious little else for hours.Because of the lack of volition? — Banno
Very good. The prospect of an infinite regress of necessities is positively intimidating.Since Kripke, It ain't necessarily so. — Banno
It just seems so odd that an argument that seems quite clearly to establish a conclusion should actually be intended to keep ideas in play. — Ludwig V
But we'll never really know what Zeno intended. — Ludwig V
I suggest however, that the prediction that there will be an eclipse in March 2025 is neither correct not incorrect, neither fulfilled or unfulfilled until April 2025. Will that do? — Ludwig V
Thereby hangs a PhD - or a career.But seriously, who invented this idea, and is it proof against Humean scepticism? If not, why not? — Ludwig V
Thank you. I'm not the person to do that work. I think I'll remain respectfully sceptical.Thereby hangs a PhD - or a career. — Banno
Correct/wrong is a very intricate issue. Complete agreement is hard to find. But is his doctrine right enough to resolve the fatalist's argument?Oh, I'll say it is correct - it's not wrong. But unfulfilled - yeah, ok. — Banno
First, even if it is true that physical theory cannot accommodate mentions of the colours or tastes of things, this does not by itself prove that mentions of the colours and tastes of things are to be construed as mentions of things existing or happening in people's physiological or psychological insides. — p. 83
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.