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,

Even if it's eventually wrong i'm not sure that Matthew has taken the 
consequence of what i've said. He says that we can just have a quick look 
and find out whether Philosophy is saddening, and that this is an easy 
step. But what i've said is that, as far as convincing D as has been 
construed here, it's not an easy step. Contraposing 'if it's phil. it's 
saddening' to 'if it's not saddening, it's not phil.', anything found to be 
cheery or neutral will be found by D to be 'not phil.'. Of course he's 
probably wrong, but as I have said, his proposition stands until you knock 
it down properly - as does it's negation, so we are left with an unresolved 
disjunction. Some general responses to scepticism say that that is fine, in 
fact, it's inevitable, and then find interesting ways to try and ignore the 
disjunction - but that still doesn't mean that you can 'refute' him.

Does anyone think this discussion has been pushed far enough?

Thanks for the responses to my 'lemma' question. From what I read, I was 
correct to suspect that I could use it in the context I suggested. When I 
asked a lecturer at uni 'is that a lemma?' (can't remember the example), I 
was simply told 'No.'.

Cheers,
Daniel  



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