Re: Moore on Skolem's Paradox


Or consider this argument:

"Now someone tells me that he knows what pain is only from his own
case! Suppose everyone had a box with something in it: we call it a
"beetle". No one can look into anyone else's box, and everyone says he
knows what a beetle is only by looking at his beetle. -- Here it would
be quite possible for everyone to have something different in his box.
One might even imagine such a thing constantly changing. -- But suppose
the word "beetle" had a use in these people's language? -- If so it
would not be used as the name of a thing. The thing in the box has no
place in the language-game at all; not even as a something: for the box
might even be empty. -- No, one can 'divide through' by the thing in
the box; it cancels out, whatever it is.

That is to say: if we construe the grammar of the expression of
sensation on the model of 'object and designation' the object drops out
of consideration as irrelevant. "

Could we say the same about "the intended interpretation" of set
theory?

.

Loading