My early (1996) critique of RC:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/170Prc-DDuND0jTr_jxhXY0zaoj-qF8QmH7zMMFPDlh4/edit?usp=sharing
Viewed as an inference, the 2 sentences from today's class amount to what David C. Stove (The Plato Cult) calls a "gem": inferring a substantive conclusion from a tautological premise.
1. I can't have an apple in mind without (using) my mind.
2. I can't have an apple-without-my-mind in mind
A more obvious example:
1. I cannot experience anything I cannot experience.
2. I cannot say anything about a world beyond my experience.
Even more obvious:
1. What will be, will be.
2. The future is strictly determined.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/170Prc-DDuND0jTr_jxhXY0zaoj-qF8QmH7zMMFPDlh4/edit?usp=sharing
Viewed as an inference, the 2 sentences from today's class amount to what David C. Stove (The Plato Cult) calls a "gem": inferring a substantive conclusion from a tautological premise.
1. I can't have an apple in mind without (using) my mind.
2. I can't have an apple-without-my-mind in mind
A more obvious example:
1. I cannot experience anything I cannot experience.
2. I cannot say anything about a world beyond my experience.
Even more obvious:
1. What will be, will be.
2. The future is strictly determined.
No comments:
Post a Comment