Re: Platonism
From: David Longley (David_at_longley.demon.co.uk)
Date: 11/26/04
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:45:52 +0000
In article <320e992a.0411261232.41252e2e@posting.google.com>, Eray
Ozkural exa <examachine@gmail.com> writes
>
>I actually like your point about "model". But I cannot say if I like
>the point about "exist". What is this sense used by *most*
>mathematicians then? Would you care to explain? [I don't say "all", I
>say "most" in the above discussion.]
>
>I am hoping you do not mean that in (most!) mathematics consistency is
>identical to existence. That would be quite silly, would not it?
>Eray Ozkural
This is why you have missed so much of what has been said and why you
say very naive things about "behaviourism". It's also why I have
frequently told you that you literally don't know what you are talking
about.
"To be is to be the value of a variable" - where is that from? What does
it have to do with the failure of (existential) quantification into
intensional contexts such as those of propositional attitude and the
modalities)? What does that have to do with "the extensional stance"?
-- David Longley http://www.longley.demon.co.uk/Frag.htm
- Next message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Previous message: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: Eray Ozkural exa: "Re: Platonism"
- Next in thread: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Platonism"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|