Re: An argument against modus ponens

On Sep 8, 3:18 pm, John Jones <jonescard...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

This is not the kind of thing that anybody who "has spoken with
Cambridge philosophers" could legitimately say.

.

Loading