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 Marjorie Grene dies 17 Mar 200918 Sep 2017 Marjorie Grene was a doyen of philosophy and history of biology, and I reviewed one of her last texts a while back and linked to an interview. She died yesterday, according to Leiter, aged 99. Read More
Uncategorized I can’t handle the Truth 23 Nov 2008 Siris has a nice short post on the use of “truth” in discourse: This appeal to truth is incantatory: it is not an argument but a rhetorical ploy that usually involves a false dichotomy. By ritually displaying one’s ‘interest in the truth’ in contrast with someone else’s interest in something… Read More
Uncategorized Last century’s best philosopher? 1 Mar 2009 Brian Leiter has asked who that was in the train of the New York Times declaring that it was Wittgenstein.So far, Russell is leading. Russell? My goodness, he was important but hardly the best – most read more than best, I suspect. Moore was better than Russell. As to the… 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).