me:> > Lots of people write essays that are mere trivial expositions of minor problems. Why should we think that Gallie is any different? He may be an authority figure for you, Ian, but I prefer the old anarchist slogan "question authority."<<
Ian: > Where did I write that I considered Gallie an authority figure? Quit > the sunday evening hair-splitting already. you cited this fellow as if his word were somehow a contribution without defending his perspective in any way. > >... But when someone uses a word representing a complex concept, it's always > >best to try to explain what he or she means by it. If you want have a > >reasonable discussion, this is better than leaving it deliberately vague or > >saying "it's contestable/ed so anything goes" or whatever the implication is > >supposed to be of the ho-hum fact that concepts are subjective. If the > >definition is still too vague, then people can ask for clarifications.<< > Setting a new record for inferential leaps of interpretation way beyond what > I wrote once again..........< Well, if you'd explain what you meant rather than simply making the trivial point that concepts are subjective and leaving it there, I would not have to use phrases like "or whatever the implication is supposed to be." Also, you should note that I did not attribute any opinion at all to you in the paragraph above. I did not make any inferential leaps at all. > > Definitions aren't about Truth as much as about _communication_. > Yawn. Sorry to bore you. I didn't know that you knew everything already. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
