[lit-ideas] [Re: Re: Malt, Coffee & Chuck Taylor (longish)]
- From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:02:28 -0700
Let me rewrite my lines in this scene.
WALTER: In other words, the claim that that a tree is climbable is true
if and only if a rational intention to climb it is coherent. Or is
"possible," as K. likes to say. If a tree is not climbable, then the
intention to climb it intends an impossibility.
RP: There’s nothing qua intention that makes such intentions possible,
but I think this is what Walter meant when he alluded to their
‘psychological’ possibility. Yet to say that this intention ‘intends an
impossibility’ is not the same as saying that one intends to do
something one knows to be impossible. (Hobbes, coming to geometry late,
believed for a long time that he had a proof that the circle could be
squared.)
There's nothing qua intention that makes such intentions *impossible*….
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] [Re: Re: Malt, Coffee & Chuck Taylor (longish)]
