No,
it's a pretty good excuse. If you've spent ten years of graduate school
learning that "propositions" means one thing, it's pretty forgivable to not
notice that someone else is using it differently. Like if I were to tell
my doctor that I had an operation on my stomach when I actually had one on my
gut. This is a punch-up that doesn't need to happen.
btw, I
don't remember much of the philosophy I took, but I seem to remember that there
were decent reasons for making a clear description between the proposition that
X and the associated mental state. I think there's something about it in
that Douglas Hofstadter book, but it's Friday night and I find that I am unable
to rise from my armchair. I would like to point out that after three
months of glorious unemployment, the pain of an 0710 morning meeting is fairly
bracing, so would listmembers please make any allowances for a certain shortness
of temper that might be affecting me in the near term.
dd
-----Original Message-----
From: PEN-L list [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Devine, James
Sent: 16 October 2004 00:31
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Dialectics/Phil of Math/Realism> Well, you should have said truth can't exist without
> minds. Truth is a property of propositions or
> sentences. Only sentences or propositions are true or
> false.
So you were arguing against what I should have said? That's a pretty weak excuse for not reading what I write with care.
