[hist-analytic] A Scientist's Landscape

Roger Bishop Jones rbj at rbjones.com
Tue Jul 21 05:45:36 EDT 2009


Interesting to see Steve mention so many different notions
of substance in Aristotle.
My own Aristotelian efforts are greatly handicapped at
present by my having read so little of the primary sources,
a problem which I hope in due course to remedy.
(one might say something similar of my knowledge of any
philosopher at all! how absurd that I am contemplating
a history, even if only of aspects of philosophical logic)

On Saturday 18 July 2009 12:27:04 Baynesr at comcast.net wrote:

>When philosphers speak of a problem as a "pseudo-problem"
>I'm inclined to run as fast from him as I do from people who say
>God speaks to them!

Ah, but surely the problem of pseudo-problems is real!

I looked back to see what I said on pseudo-problems in
my comparison of Metaphysical Positivism and Logical Positivism.
(http://rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/x003.html)
Though I do talk about pseudo-problems there, because I
am making a comparison with Carnap, I'm not much inclined
to engage in a witch hunt or to use the terminology myself.
There are conditions which one must meet for sound deductive
reasoning, and my inclination is to promulgate a method of
analysis which complies with these conditions.

Having said that, even though I'm not inclined to make
much of it, I do think that most philosophy is unsound
or meaningless or both, and that philosophers should be
concerned about this!

Let me add, that the dismissal of one philosophers views
by another who regards it as meaningless is not confined
to positivists, and I am under the impression that I
have suffered this kind of dismissal at your hands more
than once.
As soon as I start talking about "meaning" you beat
a hasty retreat, apparently abandoning any attempt to
understand what I am saying.

>One other "stream of consciousness" remark: the predication issue
>really goes back to Plato's _Sophist_. Kneale and Kneale, actually,
>locate the origins of the syllogism by going back to this.
>_The Development of Logic_.

I had a poke around in Google books, but didn't find
a lot of enlightenment.
The Grice paper does provide Plato at third or fourth hand,
since its Code's presentation of Aristotle's account of Plato's
metaphysics (as well as his own).
However, I have still not understood most of what Code actually
says, and don't understand the detail of what his formal material
is trying to say about the relationship between Plato and Aristotle.

RBJ




More information about the hist-analytic mailing list