[lit-ideas] Re: Ruth Barcan Marcus 1921-2012
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2012 14:43:19 +0000 (GMT)
________________________________
From: Adriano Palma Palma@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
the Barcan formula is a theorem, it is impossible to detect what your
"objection" is supposed to be
>>
If the two clauses above are connected [e.g. as it's a theorem it cannot be
that there is any objection], then I would suggest even theorems can be false
and can be objected to.
If the clauses are not connected and the point is simply that an objection
cannot be detected then
(a) what is the relevance of saying 'the Barcan formula is a theorem'?
(b) my post was an attempt to put what I understood to be the logical point at
issue in ordinary language, and to pass comment that it would seem that "if all
actual humans must die it does not necessarily follow that all possible humans
must die...(unless we deem all actual humans to exhaust the category of all
possible humans)".
The point at (b) raises a number of questions - like whether this is an
accurate way to convey the logical point at issue in ordinary language and
whether the logical point depends on what we "deem" as the relation between
"actual humans" and "all possible humans". These questions are not answered by
pointing out that 'Barcan's formula is a theorem' or asserting that 'an
objection cannot be detected'.
So much so that the point of the post is one that is hard for me to detect.
Donal
London
Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer
Other related posts:
