[Wittrs] Re: An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 May 2010 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Wed, 5/5/10, gabuddabout <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Now Gordon says he sees only a non-identity claim on
> both sides of the premise while Joe avers that he sees
> something entirely different from either identity or
> causality being invoked by the use of "constitutes".
>
> They are playing a game with you or are in a serious state
> of confusion. Benighted or lying, again.
Hey I resemble that remark!
Seems to me that if Searle had wanted to make a causal claim in the third
premise, he would have done so, and that we should refrain from reading into
his words anything that he did not explicitly state. He italicized them after
all. One would presume he chose them carefully.
Consider the claim "salt is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for
gunpowder." I take this to mean:
1) gunpowder contains no salt.
2) salt does not suffice for gunpowder.
Strictly speaking it does not equate to a claim about the cause of gunpowder.
-gts
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
