Re: 'Cheerskep's "But MANY confusions are indeed the result of inherent faultiness in language, compounded by cloudy using of the faulty tool. "
Now take the word 'aesthetic' for example... DA On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 6:52 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "It is a mistake to reason that belief can be mistaken." > > I like to think, William, that you wouldn't stand for this Heidegger-mode > intentionally occult b.s. from anyone else on the forum. > > Say I believe my razor is on the sink in my bathroom. Then I see it on the > shelf in the shower. From that, I reason my belief must have been mistaken. > > If you say, "But that's not what I meant by 'reason' or 'belief' or > mistaken'," I claim you've supplied another instance of a misplaced faith in > the > dependability of words-without-a-description-of-the-notion-behind-them to > convey > what we have in mind. > > The early analytic philosophers were wrong to think ALL confusion in > philosophy is a matter of fuzzy language, so, if we just cure > language-and-its-use, > all philosophical problems will dissolve. But MANY confusions are indeed the > result of inherent faultiness in language, compounded by cloudy using of the > faulty tool. Which is why I continue to beat what you call a 'dead horse'. > > > > > ************** > Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with > Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. > (http://food.aol.com/tyler-florence?video=4?& > NCID=aolfod00030000000002) > > -- Derek Allan http://www.home.netspeed.com.au/derek.allan/default.htm
