Comments

  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    In any case, it doesn't seem (to my mind, at least) that metal can be reduced to a sort of pseudo-Shakespearean dilemma, as if "to be a sellout, or not to be a sellout" were the only legitimate question here. Because there's something to be said about the pursuit and eventual mastery of a craft. Biohazard may not be sellouts, but they're not exactly masterful musicians either. And while metal can't be reduced to complex instrumentation either (I'm looking at you, Dragonforce), that doesn't necessarily mean that good instrumentalists are somehow soulless. Yngwie Malmsteen is the paradigmatic example here. Throughout his career, he was obsessed with playing the guitar to the same technical degree that Paganini played the violin. He used to practice hour after hour, all day, until his fingers were literally bleeding. And while no one is under the obligation to do the same thing, I don't think that this level of commitment to one's craft is something that can be glossed over. To Alestorm's point, Malmsteen could have composed more palatable songs just to make more money. To Biohazard's point, the fact that he didn't means that he never sold out.

    Selling out isn't wrong per se. Having fun, getting drunk and making loads of money is fine. So is screaming half-naked "I'll never sell my soul" with a polluted bridge in the background. And, arguably, so is wanting to take the craft of musicianship to an unprecedented level.

  • Favourite mode of travel
    I have fond memories of taking a ferry when I lived in Seattle in the early 90's. The destination was a nearby island. I can't remember which one it was, but I do remember that it had a pine forest and several totem poles. For some reason, the landscape made quite an impression on my young mind. One of my fondest memories, for sure. I'm super nostalgic about it.
  • Tao follows Nature
    What the heck is Bin Laden doing here in the Tao?PoeticUniverse

    Looks like not everything is rose-tinted in the world of the Tao, innit.

  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    What's blasphemous about it? Is it because they're admitting their desires are erotic and pleasure-chasing?Moliere

    Not at all. Admitting that one's desires are erotic and pleasure-chasing is all fine and dandy in the world of heavy metal. What's not fine and dandy in that world is admitting that you're a sellout. The lyrics are quite explicit in that sense:

    We're only here to have fun, get drunk
    And make loads of money
    Cos nothing else matters to me
    — Alestorm

    This is the most blasphemous thing that a heavy metal musician can say. And, to add insult to injury (but true to their over-the-top antics), there's nothing metal about the attire that they purposely chose for the official music video. They're dressed like hooligans. In other words, they threw the entire Pirate Metal thing out the window for this song. Because this is what they're really all about: having fun, getting drunk, and making a lot of money. They don't give a shit about "the idea of metal", and they've made it quite clear that they don't give a shit about what their fans expect from them either. And that is far more metal (to my mind, at least) than all of the heavy metal bands that do give a shit.

    Compare that song to (for example) Biohazard's song "Sellout"

  • Tao follows Nature
    For this is wisdom’s deepest, sweetest songPoeticUniverse

  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    Thank you very much for such an intelligent and insightful contribution to this Thread. I've been thinking about the things that you've said, and I've arrived at the following conclusion: as a metalhead, I'm simply not smart enough to offer an engaging reply to your thoughtful and informative post. There's only one sensible thing that I can say here, as a reply. You mentioned that heavy metal as a musical genre isn't exactly your forte (those weren't your actual words, but I believe it was more or less the idea, though I could be wrong). In that sense, I'll share with you what is, to my mind, the most blasphemous song in metal in its entirety. It's so blasphemous that most metalheads completely hate it. I don't. I think it's brilliant. Perhaps you'll find it useful for your anthropological journey into this fascinating musical genre.

  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    if Hawkwind isn't "hippie rock", I'm not sure what you're talking about.Dawnstorm

    It's just a convenient label that I made up, though I'm sure other people made it up before me. It's hard to be original. By "Hippe Rock" I just mean bands that sound like Jefferson Airplane, The Mamas and the Papas, Pentangle, etc. Perhaps Folk Rock or Psychedelic Rock might be more appropriate terms.

    Out of curiosity, I've looked over a few top-lists online to see if I even know enough metal albums. Turns out, I know mostly the classics/progenitors (Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, Uriah Heep, Blue Oyster Cult). I sort of feel like I can't make much of a contribution.Dawnstorm

    That's already a huge contribution. No one had mentioned Uriah Heep until yet, great band. Blue Öyster Cult was mentioned but we didn't dwell too much on it, I don't know why. Awesome band.

    (My favourite Black Sabbath album, for example, is Sabotage. That came up on maybe one list; it's mostly Paranoid, Black Sabbath or Master of Reality, and don't know the latter two).Dawnstorm

    All of them are decent albums. I'm not much of a Sabbath fan to be honest. Given the choice, I prefer other stuff in the world of metal.

    (Thanks for Afroman; he's brilliant.)Dawnstorm

    Afroman is amazing, both as a comedian and as a musician.
  • How could Jesus be abandoned?
    True, yet Hegel and Nietzsche, among other thinkers of the past, had no access to the Dead Sea Scrolls, for example. Neither did Augustine, Aquinas or Kierkegaard, for that matter. So, any interpretation of Christianity that takes those scrolls into account will be different from what other interpreters have been saying for the past 2000 years or so, since the scrolls in question were discovered in the 20th century.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    could be. I'm not really into the sort of jazz that Miles Davis does, or the sort of jazz that Thelonious Monk does, for example. I respect them, I sort of "get" what they're doing, but it's just not my cup of tea. I like the more "abstract" and experimental stuff.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Clear evidence that English is a barbarian tongue. :rofl:Count Timothy von Icarus

    Hmmm... Well, maybe. I'd say that English grammar is particularly strange in some ways. But it's a great language. I don't like reading Shakespeare in Spanish, for example. It's not the same thing as reading his works in English.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    I'm not thinking corruption, I'm thinking more that they may be aligned with authoritarian visions for America and long to rid society of deviants.Tom Storm

    In that case, authoritarians would do well to keep in mind that the ordinary people of the United States of America, the so-called deviants, will not simply lay down and die just because a group of deluded tyrants want them to. That's not what they're about as a people. That's not what their Founding Fathers would have wanted for their country. If there's one thing that the people of the USA are especially averse to, it's tyranny. It was the aversion to the tyranny of King George that promted their War of Independence. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the enslavers that prompted their Civil War. It was the aversion to the tyranny of the military-industrial complex that prompted Eisenhower's final speech. Sure, all of these historical events can be explained by less "naive" factors, such as economic factors. But it seems to me that anti-tyranny is deeply ingrained into the very identity, the very "essence" if you will, of the ordinary person from the USA, no matter what that person's class, sex, or race happens to be. Whatever faults or shortcomings the people of the USA might have, anti-tyranny is not one of them.

    As one of their Founding Fathers said:

    Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. — Thomas Jefferson
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Do you think the police and military would oppose Trump should he decide to suspend the constitution and remain in power as a totalitarian ruler?Tom Storm

    Do I think that would happen? I've no idea. The police and the military aren't immune to corruption, ideological or otherwise. If they were, then there would be no reason for Internal Affairs or military courts to exist. Would I like to believe that they would oppose such tyrannical measures? Yes, I would indeed like to believe that.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Let me think about this, since the points that you're making are quite complex.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Do we have good reason to assume that law enforcement isn't already a large part of this group?Tom Storm

    Yes, I do. Assuming that the Waco siege is indicative of such differences, of course. I could also mention Ruby Ridge, or the Oklahoma City bombing, or the apprehension of the Unabomber, among other cases. State and federal law enforcement are not beyond reproach, especially considering issues such as racism for example, as evidenced in many cases, ranging from Rodney King to George Floyd. That being said, I don't see how law enforcement agents, racist as they might be, would align themselves with someone such as Timothy McVeigh. Cops in general might be right wingers, but they don't seem to be sympathetic towards domestic terrorism. Because that is what you're effectively dealing with when a group of people plans to take over the White House: it's domestic terrorism.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    All I can say is that I hope that the different radicalized right wing groups that have formed in the USA as of late don't keep proliferating. At the end of the day, Truth is not on their side, so it shouldn't be impossible to verbally show them the errors of their ways, by means of critical thinking, respectful dialogue, and well intentioned comedy. I say "verbally" because I believe that they shouldn't be physically confronted unless it's absolutely necessary to do so -for example, if they attempt to seize power by taking over the White House. In that case, if law enforcement (both state and federal) can't deal with them for some reason (i.e., they are too numerous, so that they effectively overrun law enforcement) then, and perhaps only then, civilians are entirely justified in joining the fray and physically fighting them, even if it's to the death. But by that point, the conflict has effectively turned into a civil war. This should be avoided at all costs, if possible. It will always be preferable to confront fascists with words, not force.

  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Why did the roo hesitate? Because he didn't want to jump to a conclusion!
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Sure. As Ernesto Laclau would say, regarding the modus operandi of populism, the reclamos become demandas. Equivalence chains propagate to a polarizing degree, in such a way that disenfranchised individuals crystalize into a more or less homogeneous (or better yet, homogenized) mass, in increasing opposition to "the powers that be", i.e., the government. Career politicians must navigate the particularly complicated jungle of demands in such a way that the aforementioned homogenized mass becomes increasingly heterogeneous instead. That is, it's in the best interest of those that govern, to meet each demand separately, since this is the most effective strategy for mass disarticulation. Fascist leaders understand that such top-down efforts to disarticulated a discontent and radicalized mass goes against their own plans for seizing power, hence they need to double down on their vitriolic rhetoric. Argentina already underwent the rise of fascist groups and right wing populism that now characterizes the political landscape of the USA. Several times, I might add. We had five military coups (some count six) during the 20th century alone, plus the phenomenon of Peronism, which is a real head-scratcher for everyone, Argentines included.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Indeed. The fascist appeals to the irrational sentiments of his followers. He riles them up with vitriolic rhetoric about some other group of people who, for some reason, must take the blame for every key societal problem. Those that end up with a sort of raptured state of mind (i.e., in awe of the fascist concept of the nation) are the ones that will most likely climb up the ranks to become intermediaries: captains, lieutenants, and whatnot. Those who fail to experience such awe-inspiring psychological phenomena will most likely be the rank and file grunts. They're still fascists, but merely because they just "take the leader's word for it". They hope to become as "enlightened" as their commanding officers, that is, they hope to achieve the sort of mystical revelation that they believe their superiors have already achieved. It's really just delusions bordering on something similar to psychosis at the end of the day.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    What you identify is just one of the difficulties of identifying people and personal identity with bodies.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Yes, indeed. It's a particularly difficult philosophical problem to solve, especially for atheists such as myself.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    I too prefer toast and butter and haven't found a cause for which dying seemed like a good idea.BC

    I'd willingly die for many causes, such as saving the life of a family member or a friend, for example. I'm not willing to die for a fascist cause, because fascist causes strike me as unjust and irrational to begin with. So, if I have to choose between going to war simply for the sake of "being brave" or staying in my house like a coward, then I'd rather be a coward.

    Usually, this rhetoric of the patriot's game is voiced by people who are quite conservative, whether they served in the military or not.BC

    I consider myself a left wing Argentine patriot, in the tradition of Mariano Moreno. I don't condone the actions of Argentine right wingers, even if they call themselves patriots just as much as I do. And if for some reason the conflicts in our society escalate to the point of physical violence, then I'm willing to fight them, and to die in such a fight. I believe that such is the nature of a civil war. I don't want to die, and I don't want a civil war to occur. All I'm saying is that I, personally, am ready to fight and even to die if such are the circumstances. I don't think that this has anything to do with fascism (at least not on my side, I'm sure the right wingers think that fascism is "a good thing").

    A fascination with uniforms, flags, chains of command, obedient service, weapons, and so on isn't in itself fascist. Sprinkle holy water on the troops, and one is a little bit closer.BC

    I think that those are necessary but insufficient causes of fascism. The rhetoric seems (to my mind, at least) to have more brainwashing power than the mere symbols, iconography, and other purely aesthetic, organizational, or structural elements. In other words, no chain of command or obedient service is more persuasive to the fascist mind than the idea that going to war is inherently better for some reason than staying in your house eating toast with butter. It's this last part that makes no rational sense to me, because I suspect that at the end of the day, it has nothing to do with reason. It's pure, irrational sentiment, similar in some sense to the blind faith of Kierkegaard's fideistic "knight of faith". That's why the fascist slogan is "Believe, Obey, Fight", instead of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" which was the slogan of the French Revolution.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    There is a lot of strong support for the view that organisms and the ordered cosmos as a whole are most properly beings.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Yes, but Aristotle's Prime Mover, which is pure form, is arguably not alive, at least not in the sense that trees, dogs, and people are. If, on the other hand, "form" is to be understood as some kind of activity (i.e., as energeia, as distinct from potentiality), then I can see how organisms and the Prime Mover would both have "form" in the same sense.

    A corpse is not a man.Count Timothy von Icarus

    Contra Aristotle, I might argue that it is. A corpse is a man that happens to be dead. It's a man that no longer has the property of being alive. Though some philosophers, like Eric T. Olson would disagree with me. Are you familiar with his distinction between "corpse concurrentism" and "corpse creationism"? He discusses this topic in his article The Person and The Corpse.

    Or, one could instead say that it was, and that when Truman dies, what remains is no longer Truman. Instead, what remains is merely Truman's body. For someone like me, who claims that every human is identical to a living brain in a body, this is problematic.

    How so? A corpse doesn't consist of "a living brain in a body," so it need not be Truman, although surely it is Truman's body.
    Count Timothy von Icarus

    Indeed, a corpse doesn't consist of a living brain in a body. Since I claim that a human being (or perhaps even a person) is identical to a living brain in a body (and not identical to a Christian soul, for example), it follows (if I want my system of beliefs to be coherent) that a human corpse is not a human being (and perhaps not even a person). But this strikes me as an unwanted consequence of my premises, so it seems to me that one of my premises is dubious. I want to be able to say, at the same time, that a person just is a living brain in a body, and at the same time I want to say that a recently deceased human being is still a human being, not merely a corpse. When a deceased person "rests" in a coffin, and the person's loved ones attend the corresponding funeral, it seems to me that the deceased person is still there, right where the corpse is. So, I haven't found a way to reconcile these claims, yet. Shorter: Truman is just his living embodied brain, and when Truman dies, he's still Truman, even though he's no longer alive, and yes, I acknowledge that this is contradictory.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    When I was a teenager I started to get interested in politics. I remember that we learned about the Second World War in school, and I recall that I couldn't get my head around the concept of fascism. I mean, I understood the thing about the bundle of sticks, and all of that dumb imagery, but I just couldn't understand the fascist mentality, beyond the rhetoric.

    So, I talked with my family, but since none of them had ever been fascists, they couldn't quite explain "the gist" of it to me. So, my grandmother (a moderate conservative of Basque heritage, who happened to be married to my grandfather, a moderate conservative of Italian descent), took it upon herself to "explain fascism to me". The conversation went like this:

    Her: "Mussolini asked a crowd of people: 'Pópolo, ¿Qué quiere? ¿Manteca, o Cañones?" (People, what do you want, butter or cannons?"

    Me: "Butter."

    Her: "No, they want Cannons!"

    Me: "Why? You can eat butter, you can't eat cannons."

    Her: "It's not about what you can eat, that's not the idea."

    Me: "Then what is the idea? What is it about?"

    Her: "If you choose butter, then that means that you stay at home, like a coward, doing nothing but eating toast with butter. If you choose cannons, then that means that you're brave, that you're proud to go to war."

    Me: "That sounds stupid to me. I prefer to stay at home like a coward, eating toast with butter, instead of risking my life in a war just so that I can convince myself and others that I'm brave."

    Her: "Then you don't understand fascism."

    Me: "No, I don't."

    And I suppose that I never really did. Understand fascism, that is. I mean, I understand it to the extent that I see it as right wing populism. I don't see how it can be anything else.
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    Fascism has also been characterized as "a style" -- by which I do not mean a mere preference for brown shirts and goose stepping. "Style" would include the regular crude use of force, ruthlessness, crass manipulation of the public, the deployment of sappy 'Volk' sentimentality (like PATRIOTISM), etc.BC

    I'll quote one of my favorite philosophers here, because he explains "style" much better than me:

    I once knew an arrogant sculptor who snapped at some remarks about artistic style that were made in his presence. It was proposed during a con­versation that one might design a computer capable of generating count­less new works in the style of an already known author or musician. The sculptor objected to this notion, not in the manner of a luddite, but that of someone quite confident in a specific philosophical position: "there is no such thing as a style apart from the sum total of works an artist has pro­duced." Whatever the merits of this position, they are opposed by the entire phenomenological tradition, and in my view rightly so. A style is actually not a mere concept abstracted from numerous singular cases, but an actual reality that none of its manifestations can exhaust. One can hear a newly discovered Charlie Parker recording and immediately recognize the style; one can and will say that "that solo is really classic Bird," even though up till now it was not part of the known Parker oeuvre. We sense that a certain person does not really belong in Brooklyn or in the military just by their general style, without being able to pinpoint any disqualifying factors. In this sense, styles are no different from intentional objects as defined by Husserl, which lie beyond any of their current profiles and even any of their possible profiles. We can say of any object that it is not a bun­dle of specific qualities, nor a bare unitary substratum, but rather a style. And although style is not often seen as one of Merleau-Ponty's key tech­nical terms, I would suggest that it may be the most important of them all -just as his personal style of seeing the world is surely his most lasting contribution to philosophy.Graham Harman, Guerilla Metaphysics, p. 55
  • Fascism in The US: Unlikely? Possible? Probable? How soon?
    I think we can agree that fascism isn't a particularly coherent system of beliefs. It's based on sentiment, there is no rational ideology behind it. It works because it riles people up into a sort of raptured state of mind. This is accomplished by Romanticist rhetoric, such as "Neither Right nor Left", and "The Nation is the Hegelian dialectical synthesis of Bourgeois and Proletarians". It's a tricky rhetoric to deal with, because it's arguably Napoleonic in intent, though not in actual language.
  • What are the top 5 heavy metal albums of all time?
    Yup, I play the piano. I'm just an amateur, but I used to be in a rock band when I was younger. It was a sort of bluesy, progressive rock n' roll band, with a bit of experimental stuff thrown in for good measure. I know a little bit of guitar, but it's not my forte.

    As an amateur pianist, I can barely play jazz. Few people in the rock n' roll / heavy metal world can, I believe. I mean, imagine the saxophone in Coltrane's "Transition" as if it was a guitar. Who can actually play those notes like that? I don't think that there's any guitarist that can. You'd have to find a jazz guitarist, like Django Reinhardt, and I'm not entirely sure that Django himself could have played like Trane. Plus, I think that we also have to acknowledge that Trane was an incredibly sophisticated musical theoretician as well. For folks that don't know what we're talking about, here's how Wikipedia describes his work in "Giant Steps":

    "Giant Steps" is a jazz composition by American saxophonist John Coltrane. It was first recorded in 1959 and released on the 1960 album Giant Steps. The composition features a cyclic chord pattern that has come to be known as Coltrane changes. The composition has become a jazz standard, covered by many artists. Due to its speed and rapid transition through the three keys of B major, G major and E♭ major, Vox described the piece as "the most feared song in jazz" and "one of the most challenging chord progressions to improvise over" in the jazz repertoire.Wikipedia

    And a bit later it says:

    From beginning to end, "Giant Steps" follows alternating modulations of major third and minor sixth intervals (with diminished fourth and augmented fifth intervals between B and E♭). Its structure primarily contains ii-V-I harmonic progressions (often with chord substitutions) circulating in thirds.Wikipedia

    I'd say that this song is impossible to play for 90% of musicians. The remaining 10% that can actually play it are jazz musicians, and not all of them, only the particularly skilled and knowledgeable ones. This composition is the pinnacle of what I call "abstraction" in jazz. It's a highly intellectual piece. And this is what I, personally, get out of jazz that I can't get out of other genres of music. Suffice to say that I don't have the capacity to play anything by Art Tatum or Cecil Taylor either.

  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Well, I reckon that you would need more than two sentences, unless each sentence is some kind of Kantian paragraph. You'd have to explain to the drunk who Dennett is, and what qualia are. The former is easy to do, the latter not so much.

    EDIT: You'd also have to explain to him that "qualia" is plural, and that the singular is "quale".
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Then the pub Test isn't infallible. Sounds like it has the same advantages and disadvantages that common sense and intuition have.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Not a topic to treat in a couple of words.Banno

    So it doesn't pass the Australian pub Test?
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    There's no pubs in Argentina, it's just not part of the culture. I mean, there are bars, as in, establishments that specialize in serving alcohol, but those are cultural cemeteries. There's no pubs in the Irish (or Australian) sense of the term, as traditional gathering places. There's pulperías though. Think of them as Wild West Saloons but with a menu that consists of meat, cheese, and various types of salami / pepperoni. Drinks are typically wine, beer, or strong spirits like ginebra. No whisky, though.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Cool. I take the pub Test to imply that you can't suggest anything that you can't explain in two sentences to a drunk.Banno

    Well, no offense Banno, but I think that alcohol might be more culturally significant to Australians than to Argentines. I'm not in the habit of explaining things to drunkards.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Or put differently, whether it is nonsensical to talk about Truman apart from his life.Leontiskos

    It doesn't strike my ear as nonsensical, at least not necessarily. For example, suppose that Truman's form is his soul. If so, then it's not evident to me that Truman's soul immediately leaves his body after he has died. Maybe it remains in his body for a few minutes, or even a few hours. So, in such circumstances, it makes sense to talk about Truman apart from his life.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Some contemporary Aristotelians suggest that Aristotle didn't think that artifacts had forms, because they think that an Aristotelian form has something to do with life. I think that's a bit of a stretch in interpretative terms, but it's something to consider. If Truman has an Aristotelian form, and if an Aristotelian form is essentially a life, then Truman's formal cause is his life. We would not say that Truman himself is identical to his life, rather we would say that Truman is alive. He has the property of being alive. It's an open question what happens when Truman dies. Is he still Truman, but dead? If so, then his form wasn't his life, after all. Or, one could instead say that it was, and that when Truman dies, what remains is no longer Truman. Instead, what remains is merely Truman's body. For someone like me, who claims that every human is identical to a living brain in a body, this is problematic.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    Very interesting, thank you. I'll take a look at those references.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    I'm all for common sense. That doesn't mean that common sense is infallible. There are cases in which it effectively fails. The problem of Material Constitution is one such case. There's just no common sense solution to it that can also accommodate the philosophical problem presented there. So perhaps it's best to solve it philosophically, and to leave common sense aside. That doesn't mean that we should throw common sense out the window, since there are good common sense solutions to other problems, such as the problem of finding an answer to the Special Composition Question, for example. See here for one such proposal, which also manages to solve the problem of the Ship of Theseus from a common sense point of view.
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    When I say that Truman exists because someone is Truman, I'm not refering to Truman's form, but to Truman. It's easier to work with individuals.Banno

    But then you run directly into the problem of Material Constitution, that's my point.

    How does your idea fit with what in Australia is called the "pub test"?Banno

    I have no idea what that is, I don't live in Australia.

    The common sense comparison you made elsewhere? Isn't "Truman exists" about Truman, rather than the-form-of-Truman?Banno

    Is it? When dealing with a problem as difficult as the one involving Athena and Piece, perhaps it's best to abandon common sense, but just in relation to that problem, just as physicists abandon common sense when dealing with complicated scientific phenomena that are not part of our everyday, ordinary lives.

    EDIT: Think of it like this, Banno. Why is the idea that Truman can have an essence so repugnant to our analytic sensibilities?
  • What does Quine mean by Inscrutability of Reference
    I see your solution as rejecting this, since for you there is no individual Athena or Piece, but only descriptions of them - predicates. You seem to be going back to the solution suggested by Russell and Quine.Banno

    Essentially, yes, as far as the syntax goes. I disagree with Russell's and Quine's parsing of the corresponding formulas, though.

    How that would work with modality would remain to be seen.Banno

    Indeed, it remains to be seen. I make no promises in that sense. This could all be just one giant failed experiment in Philosophy of Logic.

    Let's leave it for now.Banno

    Ok. Let me say this, though, in relation to Truman / Pegasus. Since people asked Quine if Truman exists because "something Trumanizes", by parity of reasoning the same sort of question can be asked in relation to the statement "someone is Truman": does President Truman exist because someone is Truman?

    And my answer there would be yes, indeed: President Truman exists because someone is president Truman (i.e., in Quine-speak, "someone Trumanizes"). But how can that be? Isn't it the case that President Truman exists because he has two parents? Well, that's what Aristotle would say is Truman's efficient cause. Truman's formal cause, on the other hand, is not his two parents, it is instead his form. When I say that Truman exists because someone is Truman, I am not referring to Truman's parents, I am referring to Truman's form.

    Does that make sense?

Arcane Sandwich

Start FollowingSend a Message