[lit-ideas] Re: "The Causal Theory of Perception"

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2009 08:00:38 +0000 (GMT)

--- On Mon, 15/6/09, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> I think Albritton's example was:
> "He looks dangerous-looking but he is not
> dangerous-looking".

What has this example to do with the CTP (as originally put)?

The "lamp" example is surely about physical objects. There is no reason not to 
extend CTP to stuff like "dangerously-looking" and this may be interesting, but 
this stuff is surely not a physical object. 

Yet surely the point raised in a previous post still applies - if we are right 
to say "he was dangerous-looking", then he was dangerous-looking.

Whether in the case of lamps or other stuff, how does the CTP say anything 
important that cannot be (better) covered by metaphysical realism and the issue 
of truth?


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: