[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [jboske] factivity of nu



xod:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2003, And Rosta wrote:
> 
> > John:
> > > Invent Yourself scripsit:
> > >
> > > > No good! There is only one reality, all others are (equally) unreal
> > > > President McGovern, Irish Socrates, and the one where I drank hot
> > > > chocolate last night are all equally false. The Verification Principle
> > > > shows this
> > >
> > > How?
> > >
> > > You really see no difference between the you-drank-hot-chocolate world
> > > and the 2 + 2 = 5 (or worse yet, 2 + 2 = Albert) worlds, or the world
> > > where all universals are false, or the world where all false statements
> > > are true?
> >
> > I think that's the wrong distinction. Those worlds are impossible,
> > because they violate transuniversal principles (that is, they violate
> > facts that are independent of particular worlds) 
> >
> > Oh I see: you *did* mean this distinction, as a response to what xod
> > said. But let me point out for clarity's sake that the potential/imaginary
> > distinction is a distinction among worlds that are not impossible 
> >
> > I doubt I can persuade xod to accept any of that, though, except by
> > pointing out that it is an ontology that many people would like to
> > be able to express, even if xod finds it deluded 
> 
> The world where I drank the cocoa the other night is impossible 

I don't want to stop you and others debating the philosophical
point, but do you at least *understand* the metaphysical model
I was describing? The important thing is that we should be
able to express it in Lojban, like good whorfians, and you
should understand it, but then, even as you declare it linguistically
sound, you, with your philosophical hat on declare it philosophically
bogus.

--And.