[hist-analytic] Roger's Questions about Anayticity
Roger Bishop Jones
rbj at rbjones.com
Tue Jan 27 10:51:26 EST 2009
That was an impressive bit of "logic chopping" as you call it, but I'm afraid
I remain obdurate.
I believe that you are trying to refute my allegation that a true attribution
of analyticity need not itself be analytic.
Your rebuttal hinges upon there being no way of referring to the semantics of
the relevant language which does not employ a rigid designator, making the
semantics referred to fixed across all possible worlds.
I don't agree that this is the case (this would require both that "The French
Language" be a "rigid designator" and that the semantics of a language is
an "essential attribute" of it, neither of which do I accept).
In any case this would only establish that the attribution of analyticity is
necessary, not that it is analytic.
More information about the hist-analytic