tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post721715920863954577..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: To have and to holdEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-26062194368392831032011-04-23T16:02:15.833+00:002011-04-23T16:02:15.833+00:00But I like the idea of a metaphysics 'handbook...But I like the idea of a metaphysics 'handbook'. Rather like those scouting handbooks I (possibly you too) had as children, with weights and measures and useful facts about the universe and how to tie a bowline. <br /><br />If the metaphysics handbook were small enough to carry around you could whip it out when caught in a taproom dispute with Randians, Creation Scientists or any other odd POV and quote them chapter and verse on various metaphysical facts. I shall enquire about purchasing one but (like all academic books) a bit steep at over £30.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-56169907459464147362011-04-23T15:57:48.101+00:002011-04-23T15:57:48.101+00:00There's something clearly wrong with a philoso...There's something clearly wrong with a philosopher who hasn't changed their view since 1977.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-8278184465317063652011-04-23T13:48:00.832+00:002011-04-23T13:48:00.832+00:00Amazon lets you 'look inside' The Oxford H...Amazon lets you 'look inside' <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/toc/0199284229/ref=dp_toc?ie=UTF8&n=266239" rel="nofollow">The Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics</a> and reveals about two thirds of EOCFE. It's enough, I think, to see that PVI's view has not changed since 1977, except that he now describes his stipulation that 'ascription' is closed under entailment as 'unwise'.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-21071723132853586122011-04-23T09:30:40.016+00:002011-04-23T09:30:40.016+00:00I read through Creatures of Fiction carefully and ...I read through <a href="http://andrewmbailey.com/pvi/Creatures_of_Fiction.pdf" rel="nofollow">Creatures of Fiction</a> carefully and I agree there is more to say about PVI's theory. <br /><br />At the same time, I am not sure how far it reflects his mature view (it was written more than 30 years ago). He told me that his most comprehensive paper on fictional entities is in "Existence, Ontological Commitment, and Fictional Entities.", but that is unfortunately not available on that site.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-11692984368292999292011-04-21T21:26:27.324+00:002011-04-21T21:26:27.324+00:00Perhaps Ockham should be encouraged to hand in his...Perhaps Ockham should be encouraged to hand in his second shiv under an edged weapon amnesty. For he wields it rather indiscriminately. When someone claims that 'to be' is ambiguous in some arguments he reacts that it destroys every argument. Surely the claim is that the ambiguity infects only those literary arguments involving statements that are best rendered using PVI's 'ascription' relation, typically those whose grammatical subjects are, on some analyses, non-referring proper names? This is work for a scalpel, not a razor.David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.com