[Wittrs] Reading the Third Axiom without the Equivocation
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 11:06:45 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>now Searle picks the claim of constitution as the topic of interest
>>>>by saying 'syntax does not constitute semantics'. consequently, we
>>>>would expect to find that the meaning of constitution would be
>>>>'under' the card (would be the subject of the discourse); but, the
>>>>dealer (you, Stuart) moves what you call the meaning of identity so
>>>>that it appears to be the subject of discussion.
>>>Feel free to recast the text in a way that allows a different reading
>>>and we can go over that, too.
>>you already know how I read the third axiom and you have already
>>acknowledged that my reading removes the equivocation you claim to see
>>in the third axiom.
>... though we can restate the third premise more clearly (to wring out
>the ambiguity), Searle manifestly did not do so and relied, instead, on
>an ambiguous way of stating what he wanted to say.
if the third axiom can be restated without the equivocation that you say
you see in it; then, what rational person would refuse to do so?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
