On 3 Sep, 09:41, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/3 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
On 3 Sep, 01:26, David Nyman david.ny...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/9/2 Flammarion peterdjo...@yahoo.com:
and is thus not any particular physical
object. A specific physical
Dear Peter,
the Yablo-Carnac-Gallois-Quine compendium is an interesting reading - except
for missing the crux:
You, as a person, with knowledge about the ideas of the bickering
philosophers, could do us the politesse of a brief summary about who is
stating what (very few lines) which may increase
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Flammarionpeterdjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
Dennett's main goal is not to show that determinism is compatible with
free will (which it isn't),
actually it is, although I don't find it very convincing
Asking whether free will is compatible with determinism is like
On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 6:21 AM, Stathis Papaioannoustath...@gmail.com wrote:
Dennett didn't invent compatibilism. It has a long history and
extensive literature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/
I was aware of these facts. But a good SEP article nonetheless, thanks!
On 02 Sep 2009, at 19:35, 1Z wrote:
Yablo on Quine ...
Yablo argues that each aspect of Quine's critique is flawed. Firstly,
one does not need to hold that rules making up a linguistic framework
are analytic in order to be able to understand the need for a
framework in order to
5 matches
Mail list logo
