home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!sics.se!torkel
- From: torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen)
- Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
- In-Reply-To: solan@smaug.uio.no's message of Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:12:29 GMT
- Message-ID: <TORKEL.93Jan22120745@echnaton.sics.se>
- Sender: news@sics.se
- Organization: Swedish Institute of Computer Science, Kista
- References: <TORKEL.93Jan20192830@bast.sics.se> <1993Jan21.144005.26462@nynexst.com>
- <TORKEL.93Jan21213301@bast.sics.se>
- <1993Jan22.101229.15861@ulrik.uio.no>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 11:07:45 GMT
- Lines: 21
-
- In article <1993Jan22.101229.15861@ulrik.uio.no> solan@smaug.uio.no
- (Svein Olav G. Nyberg) writes:
-
- >I have noticed that my argument differs from Baruch's. But if
- >it is MY argument you find inadequate, I challenge you to show
- >what you claim.
-
- I take it you're referring to your suggestion that a sentence, to be
- meaningful, must be "built from elements already possessing meaning".
- This suggestion, while natural enough, is inadequate as it stands
- since it does not by itself constitute any theory of truth or meaning
- such as philosophers look for, but can only serve as a starting point
- for such a theory. For example, it is not at all clear how you propose
- to reply to Keith Ramsay's comments, nor what follows from your
- principle applied to such sentences as "this sentence is meaningless"
- or "this is an English sentence", nor what kind of hierarchical
- construction is presupposed in "already".
-
- In short, it is entirely premature to introduce any challenges to show
- anything. You need to develop your principle first.
-
-