[Wittrs] What is Conceptual Analysis?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 06:27:09 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote [Quoting Searle]:
>>>>>I claim we will not understand the relation of the mental to the
>>>>>physical as long as we continue to take seriously the old
>>>>>conceptual apparatus of dualism, monism, materialism and all the
>>>>>rest. Here I am proposing a conceptual revision on the grounds that
>>>>>the old concepts are not adequate to the facts as we can understand
>>>>>them, given a century of work on the brain. . . "
>>>>the quote is a good one; and, should suffice to show that Searle is
>>>>not using 'conceptual truth' as a synonym for 'analytic truth'.
>>>I never claimed he was.
>>you dragged the notion of analytic truth into a thread concerned with
>>exposing the conflation of identity, constitution and causation. I was
>>explaining the three card monte scam and you objected by performing an
>>instance of the scam before our very eyes.
>Nonsense. I referred to Searle's claim of "conceptual truth". You
>raised the question of what anyone meant by that and how did we know
>what Searle meant.
I was explaining the difference between true and ersatz identity.
[Joe]: the meaning of 'identity' that is consistent with the is of
constitution (and, often, with claims of constitution not using 'is')
is not identical to the meaning of 'identity' that is consistent with
Leibniz's Law.
when you took us on a tangent with a new claim
[Stuart]: That's certainly true but the idea of "conceptually true" is
dependent on the notion of logical identity (a thing is the same as
itself).
I then asked for the basis of this new claim
[Joe]: what is the basis of your claim that "the idea of 'conceptually
true' is dependent on the notion of logical identity"?
you then presented your evidence that some people use 'conceptual truth'
as a synonym for 'analytic truth'.
>You seem to want to make this a debate about "analytical truth" which,
>as most of us will know, is an ongoing controversy in modern
>philosophy
Searle intends the third axiom as an informative statement; so, he
would be the first to claim that the third axiom is not analytically
true.
you are, in effect, defending yourself from the claim of conflating
constitution with identity and the claim of conflating constitution with
causation --- by conflating analytically true with conceptually true.
they are not the same.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
