But consider this; do you understand the difference between talking about a possible world where Barack Obama isn't the president and a possible world where there's a man called "Barack Obama" who isn't the president? — Michael
No, one proposition can be sensitive to any number of possibilities. — The Great Whatever
There can be a difference, sure, if I'm imagining the person who I call "Barack Obama" now, as the president, not being president instead, versus imagining a different person called "Barack Obama" now, who is also not president. — Terrapin Station
I don't see how that's true. A name refers to a certain individual by convention. It doesn't matter what you're thinking about. — The Great Whatever
I don't, and this is close to the heart of why I have never been able to make any sense of Kripke's approach.But consider this; do you understand the difference between talking about a possible world where Barack Obama isn't the president and a possible world where there's a man called "Barack Obama" who isn't the president? — Michael
Convention is a matter of a lot of individuals having the "same thing" (per behavioral cues) in mind. — Terrapin Station
No it's not. It's a matter of a complex behavioral pattern. — The Great Whatever
If I say 'tree' to mean 'turnip,' I've said the wrong thing, made an error, — The Great Whatever
n my view, 'Barack Obama' is a name that I use to refer to an element of my model of the world and, when I'm talking to someone else, it refers to what I believe to be a shared element of our two models. — andrewk
No, you haven't. You've simply define it unconventionally. It's not wrong or an error to be unconventional. To say that convention makes something correct is to forward an argumentum ad populum. — Terrapin Station
Words mean certain things in linguistic communities, — The Great Whatever
Yeah, per how individuals think about them. — Terrapin Station
Yeah, per how individuals think about them. To say that they mean something outside of that is simply nonsense.
To say that you can use words wrong is an argumentum ad populum. That doesn't mean that you're using words correctly by just making up whatever meanings--because there is no correct or incorrect.
The conventions just determine the conventions. That's it. — Terrapin Station
Last time I checked, saying. 'I assert P. I can't believe you don't understand that P' did not amount to a proof of P.There is a difference between imagining Barack Obama was different, and imagining that a different person was named 'Barack Obama.' I have a hard time believing you don't understand this difference — the great whatever
To disagree with TGW is to lack some basic cognitive capacity or linguistic competence? OK, if you say so.I didn't say it amounted to a proof, but if true it'd give me the impression you lack some basic cognitive capacity or linguistic competence — The Great Whatever
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.