Posted by zeugma on December 15, 2005, at 10:54:29
In reply to Re: existential doubts, existential quantifier » zeugma, posted by alexandra_k2 on December 13, 2005, at 21:11:42
yes, primitive thisness was used to argue against Leibniz and the example of the iron balls was used to support some kind of 'haeccescist; (can't speell either) argument.
Locke as I remember has some kind of argument along these lines.
The problem is that Leibniz' laws seem to be true.
But our knowledge of objects' properties can be limited or nonexistent in many cases. Evans makes the requirements for getting the objects into the proposition more stringent, by tying it to epistemological constraints such that knowing A means knowing which thing A is. The more epistemology enters into it, the less work the language does 'on its own.'
-z
poster:zeugma
thread:585017
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20051215/msgs/589320.html