tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post132597945007198093..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: On learning the law of identityEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-5906960799863864162011-12-21T00:59:04.991+00:002011-12-21T00:59:04.991+00:00Right. It's a matter of fact: synthetic, not a...Right. It's a matter of fact: synthetic, not analytical. The ambiguities with names trivial. Ie, "DeVere was the man who--most likely-- wrote the plays falsely attributed to one Shakespeare". (Actually somewhat related to Russell's klassic "On Denoting" essay--"DeVere was possibly the author of the plays supposedly written by a man supposedly named Shakespeare..")<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't stop some people (whether they know modus ponens from their meth stash or not) from trying to turn it into a pseudo-philosophical issue.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-42505595128656926852011-12-20T22:08:03.989+00:002011-12-20T22:08:03.989+00:00>> (1) It follows from the law of identity t...>> (1) It follows from the law of identity that Shakespeare is identical with Shakespeare<br /><br />You reject this, right?<br /><br />You think "Shakespeare is Shakespeare" is false, right?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-2879853710695548152011-12-20T21:47:12.234+00:002011-12-20T21:47:12.234+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-84626021744607085612011-12-20T21:18:10.230+00:002011-12-20T21:18:10.230+00:00Also, consider the opposite possibility. What if ...Also, consider the opposite possibility. What if a subscriber to the Oxfordian theory is proven wrong. He thought that Bacon was Shakespeare. Might he not say "Ah, you're right. Now I know that Bacon is not Shakespeare. Now I know that Shakespeare is Shakespeare."?Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-66428284719271172002011-12-20T21:12:57.084+00:002011-12-20T21:12:57.084+00:00>> Anthony asks whether we could learn in 20...>> Anthony asks whether we could learn in 2012 that Shakespeare is identical with Shakespeare, given that we learned in 2012 that the Oxfordian theory is correct.<br /><br />Nope, that is not what I said. I said that, in 2012, we might be able to correctly say "We just learned that Shakespeare is Shakespeare." The difference is that, in 2012, the predicate "is Shakespeare" might be different from the predicate "is Shakespeare" today.<br /><br />"We just learned that Shakespeare is Shakespeare" is no more ridiculous than "I just learned that the people who bought my Christmas presents are the people who bought my Christmas presents."Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15847046461397802596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-64252778187640332902011-12-20T18:42:51.002+00:002011-12-20T18:42:51.002+00:00This comment has been removed by the author.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com