From jjllambias@hotmail.com Fri Feb 09 14:39:11 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_0_3); 9 Feb 2001 22:39:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 5446 invoked from network); 9 Feb 2001 22:39:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Feb 2001 22:39:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.5) by mta2 with SMTP; 9 Feb 2001 22:39:10 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:39:09 -0800 Received: from 200.41.247.48 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:39:08 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.247.48] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] RE:su'u Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 22:39:08 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2001 22:39:09.0195 (UTC) FILETIME=[1DD5A5B0:01C092E9] From: "Jorge Llambias" la djan cusku di'e >We can if you >like replace all talk of Socrates with talk of the Socratizer, where >"x1 is a Socratizer" is a predicate that is (intensionally) true of >Socrates and nobody else. But does this really change anything? If both views are equivalent it would have been much better to have selmaho CMENE behave just like any BRIVLA. The language would be much more parsimonious. It has always bothered me that I can't just say {*mi xorxes} or {*mi tcidu le djan cukta}. >OTOH, if we use a predicate that is merely contingently true of Socrates, >such as "husband of Xanthippe" (ignoring the recursion), then we >get into trouble. I never trusted much the contingent/essential distinction. It seems to me that there is a continuum going from the most essential type of properties to the more contingent, but no property can be said to be strictly one or the other. >Supposing that Xanthippe could have been married to >Xenophon instead of Socrates, then we would be compelled to >affirm sentences like "If Socrates had not married Xanthippe, he >would not have been Socrates", which seems absurd. >Or still worse: "If Xenophon had married Xanthippe, he would have >been Socrates"! Right, so "is Socrates" is not equivalent to "is the husband of Xanthippe", but that does not make "is Socrates" totally non-contingent. Otherwise, something like "if you were Socrates and Socrates was your student" would be meaningless, but it isn't, we do get a meaning out of it. >IOW "Socratizer" is a useful predicate provided it rigidly designates >Socrates over all possible worlds (or at least those where he exists). Fairly rigidly, yes, but I see no need to go to the absolute. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.