[hist-analytic] Fwd: Aune's objections to Jones on the analytic (1)
aune1 at verizon.net
Tue Apr 14 19:21:11 EDT 2009
Begin forwarded message:
> From: Bruce Aune <aune at philos.umass.edu>
> Date: April 11, 2009 7:02:05 AM EDT
> To: Roger Bishop Jones <rbj at rbjones.com>
> Subject: Re: Aune's objections to Jones on the analytic (1)
> Roger says, "This is not correct," referring to my claim that the
> concept of the Rogerfied judgment is "= x." No, Roger, it is
> correct. If "Px" is taken to be "x = x," then "P" = "= x" or,
> better, "x =". But the point is unimportant. Suppose we do take
> "P" to be "x = x." We still can't reasonably claim that the the
> complex predicate, which we can represent as "x = x & F," where "F"
> is the Frege sentence, is contained in "x = x". The "F" part of the
> predicate represents new information, data extrinsic to "x = x."
> What I asked Roger to show is that "x = x & F" is, contrary to what
> I am claiming, included in the concept of "x = x"--included in a way
> that corresponds to what Kant had in mind. To make the task for
> Roger easier, he need only show that, say, "x = x & .P v not-P" is
> present in the concept of "x = x." To prove this, he can't just
> assume that "P v not-P" is analytic; he has to show that the
> judgment containing the trivial subject and the complex predicate
> satisfied Kant's test for analytic truth.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the hist-analytic