[hist-analytic] Fwd: Aune's objections to Jones on the analytic (1)

Bruce Aune 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.
> Bruce

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20090414/25db0830/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list