Bruno Marchal wrote:
Bruno,I think that if you want to make the first person primitive, given that neither you nor me can really define it, you will need at least to axiomatize it in some way. Here is my question. Do you agree that a first person is a knower, and in that case, are you willing to accept the traditional axioms for knowing. That is:1) If p is knowable then p is true; 2) If p is knowable then it is knowable that p is knowable; 3) if it is knowable that p entails q, then if p is knowable then q is knowable (+ some logical rules). I like where this may be leading.... This may be the first step to your roadmap. As you know I have been a supporter of first person primitive for a long time. My roadmap was simple. It is a chain rule a la Descartes. I mentionned it before. Let me repost it: Let me make these statements more precise: Would it be possible to map your three axiomatic lines replacing "knowable" by "think" and "true" by "exist." Then we have: The phrase "it is thinkable" is undefined possibly because of third person (it?) inferencing. If we make it squarely first person then we have: George Levy --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- |
- Re: Are First Person prime? George Levy
- Re: Are First Person prime? Bruno Marchal
- Re: Are First Person prime? George Levy
- Re: Are First Person prime? 1Z
- Re: Are First Person prime? George Levy
- Re: Are First Person prime? 1Z
- Re: Are First Person prime? Bruno Marchal
- RE: Are First Person prime? Colin Hales
- Re: Are First Person prime? David Nyman
- RE: Are First Person prime? Colin Hales
- Re: Are First Person prime? David Nyman