Views aren't governed or delimited by what some set of individuals who don't hold the view believe is logically entailed by the view, where what they believe is logically entailed isn't something that the view-holders have expressed as the view. — Terrapin Station
What's not the case is that they believe something that someone else who doesn't identify as an x-ist believes is entailed by (parts of) the view. That's fine territory for criticism of the view from whatever other perspective, but it doesn't "draw" the view itself. — Terrapin Station
Views aren't governed or delimited by what some set of individuals who don't hold the view believe is logically entailed by the view, where what they believe is logically entailed isn't something that the view-holders have expressed as the view. — Terrapin Station
You're quite wrong that it's quite wrong.This is quite wrong. If some naive realists don't see some logical entailment of their view and posit that as part of it, and other naive realists do see the said logical entailment and posit it as being part of their standpoint, what then? which ones are the naive realists? — John
I'd never say there are correct versions of a view. Just popular and/or influential versions. What can be incorrect, however, is to say that "x-ism is F" when (almost) no one who identifies as a x-ist says/believes F.There is either one 'correct' version of naive realism or there are various versions of it. — John
Yes. Logic is nothing more than how individuals think about the world at the most abstract, generalized "level" of relations. — Terrapin Station
Haha--but that would be wrong.This is incomplete, it should read "Logic is nothing more than how all individuals think about the world at the most abstract, generalized "level" of relations, when they think coherently. — John
That would only be the case if you define "total isolation" as "views 'and the claims they make'" (what's the difference between the two, by the way?) "are not logically dependent on presuppositions that underpin them and do not themselves presuppose (i) entailments (ii) that logically follow from them" (isn't (ii) redundant with (i) by the way?). If that's what you mean by "isolation," then sure, that conditional would work. After all, If P, then P. If you'd have something else in mind by "isolation," then I don't agree that it follows that "views are in total isolation" in that case.If you want to claim that views and the claims they make are not necessarily logically dependent on presuppositions that underpin them and do not themselves presuppose entailments that logically followfrom them, then that amounts to claiming that views just are what they are in total isolation — John
. . . and that any attack of a view is reducible to merely saying 'that's wrong'. — John
Of course this must also apply then to the things you claim. What you say also must not be subject to any logical critiques of its emtailments, simply because there aren't any. — John
This also means that your claims by your own lights have no significance or implications beyond themselves. — John
At least you have confidence I suppose. Well, or at least attitude/arrogance. Not sure that's the same thing.None of what you say here shows that you have the least understanding of what I have been saying or that you are making any effort to genuinely engage. It's simply not worth making any effort on my part; I have better things to do. From what I have seen of your posts on this site and the old PF, they don't reflect much undrestanding of the issues at all, and mostly amount to nothing more than empty sophistry. I won't trouble you again. — John
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.