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

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:28:19 +0100

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.

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?

3. Yes, I dare say.

On 06/09/10 01:06, walto wrote:

> As I think I said in my first or second post, I think it's a kind of
> stipulative definition.

> What would make the statement "The Twins won yesterday" true is the
> Twins having won yesterday, what would make it false is the Twins having
> actually lost.

> I'm played out on both of those issues myself, having excerpted both
> Anscombe and Griffin at length on them in past posts. OTOH, if anybody
> else would like to continue the discussion, I'll listen with interest!
> W

Other related posts: