Hi there all you analytics, i am posting to voice a worry i have had for some time, but that had slipped my mind until Andrew Bacon's email. I say hello 'analytics' because i am looking at this problem from a continentalists point of view, and they don't usually have it (for two reasons that shall come out soon).
Andrew mentioned two opposing arguments put forth by Plantinga and Lewis. Now, it struck me immediately that both arguments had a similar premise: 'We would normally accept the proposition', and 'something we would be hard pressed to accept'. both of these have recall to what has been called common sense or intuition, or indeed many other things. The Plantinga argument begins with such a premise without which it could not function, the Lewis argument ends with such a premise, without which it would not be a r! eductio ad absurdum.
My point is that it seems strange to talk about transworld identity, stipulative definition, rigid designators, contingent a priori, necessary a posteriori etc etc etc etc, and in the end simply decide on the basis of intuition or common sense. This strange phenomena is particularly weird given all the important and enlightening work done in the fields of the social sciences, psychology, and continental philosophy etc regarding things like social indoctrination, matrices of difference, the dogmatism and intranscience of moral education etc etc blah blah blah.
Continentalists dont have this problem to avoid, either because they dont construct such clear (ha!) and concise step by step arguments, or because they dont worry too much if the theory or argument fits in with our common way of looking at things (indeed, it is often taken as a sign of a great and innovative idea if it makes us think differently, even if it sounds very odd).
i'm not going to develope links this thought has with ordinary language philosophy, or to various issues in the philosophy of scoence, such as the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics or the strong sociology of science program, or to the prevalent problem of the hermeneutic circle, but I do hope (largely due to the lack of enthusiasm for some of my recent posts) this email will provoke a few righteous outcries. I hope it is clear that i am implicitly (now explicitly) questioning the usefulness or self-awarefulness of modern analytic philosophy.
cheers,
andy.