[hist-analytic] Roger's Questions about Anayticity

Roger Bishop Jones rbj at rbjones.com
Tue Jan 27 10:51:26 EST 2009


Danny,

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.

regards,
Roger Jones




More information about the hist-analytic mailing list