[Wittrs] A New Bizarre Claim
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 03:47:10 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>both these sources are using 'conceptual truth' to mean 'analytical
>>truth' --- 'true by definition'.
>>are you claiming that Searle is claiming that 'syntax does not
>>constitute semantics' is analytically true?
>Searle says of the third premise that it is "conceptually true". By
>this it's evident, from the standard use of "conceptually true" (see
>the sources I linked to)
you found that someone on Answers.com used 'conceptual truth' as a
substitute for 'analytic truth' and you assume that Searle is doing so
also.
this is nothing more than a three card monte scam. you see a meaning
associated with one use of a given word and attribute it to Searle's use
of that word
>and from his own statements made with that claim,
are you trying to insinuate that you have some evidence from Searle's
own writings that he thinks that his claims in the third axiom are
analytically true? if so, would you quote this material?
>that he means we can discern the truth by examining the meaning
>denoted by the terms alone, i.e., by unpacking the truth of the
>relation from the concepts themselves.
it depends on what you mean by 'unpacking'.
the standard example of an analytic truth is 'a bachelor is an unmarried
male'. you can determine that this is true by looking up 'bachelor' in a
dictionary.
are you claiming that Searle is claiming that the truth of the third
axiom can be determined by looking up words in a dictionary?
if not, would you describe how you would do the conceptual analysis
needed to determine whether Searle's claim (that the third axiom is
conceptually true) is true or not?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
