• andrewk
    1.6k
    I have done both. Unfortunately, it looks like further discussion on this interesting topic will not happen.
  • Snakes Alive
    233
    With all due respect, this quote belies the first claim:

    His objection appears to be that the definite description 'Godel' in the sentence 'Godel was a great mathematician' has an ambiguous referent, and that is a fatal flaw in the descriptivist approach.andrewk

    There is no way even a cursory reading of the book (or a summary of it!) could give you anything like this impression, so either you didn't read it or have no memory of it. The basic terminology isn't even right: 'Godel' is not a description, but a proper name (a description is a determiner followed by predicative material, like 'the boy' or 'a cat').

    As far as arguing in good faith, continuous refusal to look at the examples given you after you ask for them, then a wholesale dismissal of an entire approach, is not a token of good faith.

    Anyway, you're right, this isn't going to lead anywhere, but I thought this shouldn't go unaddressed.
  • andrewk
    1.6k
    continuous refusal to look at the examples given you after you ask for themSnakes Alive
    I don't recall ignoring any particular example, but it is possible I missed it. Which example do you see as most important to discuss?
145678Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.