What you and Michael don't get, and what Saussure demonstrated very well, is that the thing and the things's name can't be separated as long as you are using the same word, quotations or no. — Thanatos Sand
You wrote:
In my opinion, if it exists, it is meaningful.
This immediately reminded me of Gettier 'problems' with the JTB account. — creativesoul
It's been too long since I read Saussure, so I'm not sure what separating involves here and if that's what Michael and I think we're doing.
I might even agree that quotation marks are not the ideal way to do this, but in our circle it's the standard way of talking about a name (I'm speaking loosely here) instead of the name's bearer. Like I said, it's just a convention in our crowd (but evidently not yours) -- we could refer to Michael's name as <Michael> or Michael-name or Name(Michael) or whatever.
My cat's name is "Jack". Jack is my cat. "Jack" is not my cat. — creativesoul
It's certainly not standard convention; so you cant' impose it on others. If it was, people would have to always write in scare quotes to signify they are signifying the actual signified. Not only would that be unwieldy, it is not how we write in English. Its' certainly not how we teach people to write in English departments. — Thanatos Sand
It's certainly not standard convention; so you cant' impose it on others. If it was, people would have to always write in scare quotes to signify they are signifying the actual signified. Not only would that be unwieldy, it is not how we write in English. Its' certainly not how we teach people to write in English departments.
— Thanatos Sand
Well a convention is not something one imposes -- do as you like. I'm just telling you it's been standard practice in Anglo-American philosophy for more than a few generations now. Indeed, we do always use quotation marks when we want to signify the signifier. You get used to it.
I don't intend to argue Saussure with you.
If anything, disjunctivism can handle the Gettier cases better than other accounts of justification (if they can handle them at all). Because according to disjunctivism, Gettier cases are not instances of a justified belief in the first place (because all of them are build on the assumption that evidence is not factive) and so the problem simply doesn't arise for this view.This immediately reminded me of Gettier 'problems' with the JTB account. The sleight of hand regarding not taking account of the difference between the candidates' actual belief and Gettier's report upon that. One cannot believe both 'X' and not 'X'. Thus, disjunction does not warrant/justify belief in both. — creativesoul
One cannot believe both 'X' and not 'X'. Thus, disjunction does not warrant/justify belief in both. — creativesoul
I don't intend to argue Saussure with you.
Forget what I say, now on second thought I don't think that disjunctivism can actually solve the Gettier problem. Never mind. — Fafner
The sentence "extraterrestrial life exist" is true (if it is true) because a) in English the sentence means what it means (this is the part concerning subjects) — Fafner
So it is perfectly possible that a sentence is true without anyone knowing it, because it is plain that many sentences that we don't know their truth still make sense, meaning that we already understand what would it take for them to be either true or false without knowing what is actually case. — Fafner
This only shows that the 'known fact' wasn't really a known fact, but was merely believed to be a known fact. These are two different things on my understanding of knowledge. — Fafner
Everyone agrees that if someone knows that P, then P is true. (Someone knowing that P is a sufficient condition for P being true.) — Srap Tasmaner
But now this is the converse: if P is true, then someone knows that P. (Someone knowing that P is a necessary condition for P being true.) Its contrapositive is that if no one knows that P, then P is false. — Srap Tasmaner
I think it does actually, since it provides a conception of indefeasible warrant that can be substituted to the misguided notion of merely "internal" justification that makes the construction of Gettier examples possible. — Pierre-Normand
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.