Saying Something about Something that is not Nothing
January 11th, 2008, search relatedRelated posts :: No related posts
Saying Something about Something that is not Nothing
There are two formulas for defining predication:
>>>A) ’saying something about something’
>>>B) ’saying something about something that is not nothing’
>>JP: I had hoped that you would agree that version B neither adds to
>>nor subtracts from version A; and, that version A neither adds to nor
>>subtracts from version B; but, no.
>ME: My last post … shows, by a detailed argument, that your
>criterion B for admissible predication, ’saying something about
>something that is not nothing’, leads to an aporia, and is therefore
>untenable.
your ‘argument’ is half-baked.
you have shown (to your own satisfaction, anyway) that definition B is
untenable. now you need to show that definition A and definition B are
not logically equivalent; otherwise, you will have shown that A is just
as untenable as B.
what does A allow (or prohibit) that B does not allow (or prohibit)?
Joe
–
Philosophy is, after all, done ultimately in the first person for the
first person. — H-N Castaneda
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
