Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones <jonescardiff@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2008 19:41:15 +0100
OP wrote:
John Jones wrote:OP wrote:> I don't know what is meant by abstraction. Anyway, I argued that not-PJohn Jones wrote: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?
Sorry about that. By the 'context of' I mean the framework through which objects are possible or can be manifested. For example, 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. So without the framework of colour no particular colour can be represented. Without the framework for P, neither P nor not-P can be represented.
If you follow that then what I was saying was that 'not-P' can only mean R or the absence of the framework for the possibility of P. It can't mean the latter because we still need to have 'not-P'. So it must be R.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: george
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- References:
- An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: John Jones
- Re: An argument against modus ponens
- From: OP
- An argument against modus ponens
- Prev by Date: Re: Logic must "look after itself"
- Next by Date: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Previous by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Next by thread: Re: An argument against modus ponens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|