[quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 24 Sep 2010 00:57:16 -0000

--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
> Hi Walt:
> But I explained both interpretations, so the "indeterminacy" is resolvable; 
> this is unsurprising. And, it usually doesn't take a lot of effort to 
> discover and then fix any inconsistency of interpretation, which is, again, 
> why the root, ultimately unresolvable indeterminacy of translation he 
> gestures has no instances in real life.
> Besides, Quine says the language of first-order logic is determinate. How do 
> you explain that? Do you look into the web of belief and see a hard core that 
> can't be pushed to the periphery? The metaphores are evocative, but offer no 
> real elucidation.

According to Quine, logical truths are true in virtue of their form alone, but 
as a Godelian, he doesn't think math is reducible to logic and need the reality 
of sets.


Other related posts: