[quickphilosophy] Re: 1.12; 1.13; 1.2 & 1.21

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 20:22:28 -0000


--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Martin Brampton <martin.lists@...> 
wrote:
>
> 1. I'm not clear that stipulative definitions of words that are already 
> in common use make much sense.  At best, they seem to lead quickly to 
> confusion, as traditional meanings get mixed up with the putative 
> stipulative definition.
> 

Yes, there is certainly that danger.

> 2. I don't see a statement and a fact in your example, I only see a 
> statement in quotes and others not in quotes.  Is a miracle supposed to 
> happen somewhere?
> 

It's not the statement (not in quotes) that makes the statement (in quotes) 
true.  What makes the statement in quotes true is (the fact) that the Twins 
won.  (That you didn't see may be a misfortune if you're a Twins fan, but is 
irrelevant to its truth-making capacity.)

;>}

W





Other related posts: