RE: Philosophy general debate

[djf500@york.ac.uk]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Hi,

I need to restate what I meant following AG's reply to my earlier heckling! 
AG's final point first...

I didn't suggest that if you were I case that fitted D's principle (i.e. 
read D's books and got a tad morose) then that would prove his principle. I 
simply said that to remove the principle you can't simply beg the question 
(implicitly or explicitly, see Wright, 2000 in Sosa and Villanuenva [sorry, 
not spanish or working from the book!]). You do have to go behind his 
principle, as it were.

Now the next bit...

I'm aware that if something is the same proposition, then clothing it in 
different language (i.e. types or tokens, as it were) fails to alter it's 
truth conditions (it does alter its doxastic conditions - I don't know what 
the hell M-Ponty is on about most of the time, even if it's all true). That 
does not come to bear on my point. My point was (and perhaps I didn't 
explain it well) that charity is required to discover the actual 
proposition at the middle of all of the purple prose. What M-P and that lot 
(including D) say is very difficult, and does not make use of familiar 
notions, and so we have to refuse to take what they say on face value in 
order to under *what they really mean* and then judge *that* proposition.

I hope that makes sense.
Cheers,
Daniel.  


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml