What is philosophy? 16 Dec 2008 Below the fold is a video produced by the Australasian Association of Philosophy back in the 1990s. The talking head is, I think, Graeme Graham Priest. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IG1IAzSC0U&hl=en&fs=1] Uncategorized
Uncategorized Blogging the history of science 11 Aug 20084 Oct 2017 A chance link to my blog has led me through an ego search to find Will Thomas’ most excellent Ether Wave Propaganda blog. Will is a historian of science post-doc, I think, and he has an engaging style. Coincidentally, John Lynch lists various links to history of science, including a… Read More
Uncategorized History and Historiography 23 Oct 2008 My favourite subject as an undergraduate was Historiography, which covered historical method and the nature of history. I was fortunate to be invited to contribute to the Blackwell Companion to the Philosophy of History and Historiography by the editor, Aviezer Tucker, which is being launched in Prague next week. Unfortunately… Read More
But that would lead to a para-consistency! Oh, wait… Have you tried this on him? I’d love to see how he gets around it.
At least Graham Priest will have a hard time arguing why “Graeme Priest” is not the correct spelling … oh, it is surely wrong, but according to Priest that doesn’t exclude the possibility that it’s right as well. Trouble like this is, in fact, the main problem for dialetheism (at least Priest’s system) – even if there were dialetheia, you want to be able to at least formulate the claim that some sentence ‘s’ isn’t among them, yet there are no resources for doing exactly that (and what does that expressive limitation do to his argument against a Tarski-style solution to the semantic paradoxes? Just asking).
At least Graham Priest will have a hard time arguing why “Graeme Priest” is not the correct spelling … oh, it is surely wrong, but according to Priest that doesn’t exclude the possibility that it’s right as well. Trouble like this is, in fact, the main problem for dialetheism (at least Priest’s system) – even if there were dialetheia, you want to be able to at least formulate the claim that some sentence ‘s’ isn’t among them, yet there are no resources for doing exactly that (and what does that expressive limitation do to his argument against a Tarski-style solution to the semantic paradoxes? Just asking).