Re: An argument against modus ponens

John Jones wrote:
OP wrote:
John Jones wrote:
> I don't know what is meant by abstraction. Anyway, I argued that not-P
can mean either R, or the elimination of the framework for the expression of P. I don't see any other alternatives.

What I have been trying to tell you is that phrases like "context of P" and "elimination of the framework for the expression of P" don't make sense on their own, but you continue to use them. You seem to be speaking in a private language, and I am inviting you to speak the lingua franca of common, everyday words and phrases.

Can you explain what you mean by "context" or "framework" without using any philosophical language at all? How would you explain them if you really wanted somebody's grandmother to understand them?
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... By the 'context of' I mean the framework through which objects are possible or can be manifested. ... neither P nor not-P can be represented. ... Every object has a framework for its manifetstion. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... and "elimination of the framework for the expression of P" don't make sense on their own, but you continue to use them. ... By the 'context of' I mean the framework through which objects are possible or can be manifested. ... red is found in the context of colour and not sound; physical objects are found in the framework/context of space which allows differences to be manifested. ... neither P nor not-P can be represented. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: An argument against modus ponens
    ... By the 'context of' I mean the framework through which objects are possible or can be manifested. ... red is found in the context of colour and not sound; physical objects are found in the framework/context of space which allows differences to be manifested. ... neither P nor not-P can be represented. ...
    (sci.logic)