Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Miles Sabin wrote: > Jonathan Borden wrote, > > Actually, the "important" concept that Quine denied the existence > > of, was precisely "a priori" truths, 2 + 2 = 4 being one that serves > > as a classic example. So the meaning of the term depends on one's > > perspective. You are assuming that 'Daniel Dennett' is the ultimate > > authority on philosophy. > > Err ... nope, far from it. > > Dan Dennett _is_ however the editor of The Philosophers Lexicon, and > has been since it's early days before it went public in the American > Philosophers Association journal. That's where the verb "to quine" > comes from, and the definition there is the one understood by all the > professional philosophers I've ever met. Miles, I am quining your definition of "quining" .... "So the meaning of the term depends on one's perspective..." You see how rapidly this discourse has degenerated into a "he said, she said" exchange. All because _you think_ we disagree about a subtle semantics of an obscure word. You asserted that I "missed the point". This _is_ the point. I understand exactly what you are saying about the need for a consensus regarding the semantics of words. I would not have selected the Quine example, I assure you, if this were not the case. You see, this exchange would be entirely useless except as an example, and here you have correctly gone to an "authority". What I am saying, simply, is that it is useful to have an authority to go to in order to resolve conflicts regarding the meaning of words, especially as new words are introduced into a vocabulary. The "http" protocol has the interesting characteristic in that every such URI does have an authority -- the owner of the DNS entry for the host. That interesting fact does not negate what you correctly say about shared semantics. It does provide a valuable mechanism for resolving disputes when semantics are not shared. Jonathan
|
