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 Sterelny wins Nicod Prize 3 Sep 200818 Sep 2017 Sometimes it’s so cool to know smart people, so you can congratulate them when they win awards. Go Kimbo! Hat tip Leiter. 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 Cambrian fossils at Kangaroo Island 28 Aug 200818 Sep 2017 Kangaroo Island is a largish island off the coast of South Australia, famous for its wildlife and food. It also has some of the best preserved Ediacaran Cambrian fossils, on a par with the famous Burgess Shale. A report on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s TV show Catalyst recently showcased these,… 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).