[PDF]From Ontological to Semantic Disagreement
vided that such a claim is regimented as ∃x(x pegasizes), (ii) its negation can be used by Horatio to say that he does not believe in the existence of ...
ftp.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-278...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
well, put that way...it's a bit different--you're not predicating (he has wings, or something), but merely saying x, a Pegasus, exists. You mean....in earth's history?? Or like....the Universe. Rather daunting existence claim, even to...disprove--not unrelated to Russell (yr probably sick of him...as am I) and his celebrated Teapot. But Id say given a strict truth functional logic (not unlike Quine's approach in MOL) that those sorts of quasi-mythological statements are verboten
ReplyDeleteYes -- Quine may have been a genius but he lacked what I call 'imagination'. To restrict 'Pegasus' to 'x pegasizes' is cruel. For one, though, there is some logic. I would not be so ready to get 'rid' of the '-us'. Why not "Pegasusizing"?
ReplyDeleteto ..indulge in a bit of ...epistemic-L, are you justified in believing that...an x pegasized, ever, as say you would be in believing.., not to say...knowing that the nazis were responsible for the Beer hall putsch, or japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, JFK was killed, etc?? (or any other, indisputable 20th century historical facts)?? I would say nyet. At some point epistemology enters in a typical argument, at least one which is not merely tautological/formal--tho' I am still not convinced epistemic-L really...does much (at least for beliefs. Knowledge is a bit different. "If Spassky beat Bobby Fischer, then Spassky knows (knew) how to play chess" seems sound. But epis-L. doesn't get much more involved than that .
ReplyDeleteDon't know!
ReplyDeleteMaria R., in her nonexistent object entry, mentions the 'story' operator. According to Story S, Pegasus flew. Etc.
I think that is pretty enough. I mean, the Greeks ascribed real properties to the thing. For one, they had very confused ideas about species. I could not see how a horse can fly and STILL be a horse. I mean, in terms of the scientific name, equus equus. So, Pegasus was probably NOT a horse -- I mean, we don't call a thing with wings a 'horse'. So those descriptions of Pegasus as a 'flying horse' are ill-formed, and not unlike, 'a square circle'.
On the other hand, what do I know. I'm not into genetic engineering, but I would grant that if you do mix an albatross with a horse-horse, you possibly DO get 'Pegasus'?