----- Original Message -----
From: <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: 14 February 2001 15:20
Subject: Re: FW: statement
| I appreciate your response, however, I find it difficult to believe that
you
| are sincere.
I don't see how you can appreciate what you consider probably insincere.
Thanks for the insult by the way.
| Is there something different between an apple and an orange?
Differences and similarities
If
| you say that there is, then can you find a language rule that states this?
| If you can't then why is it that the statement, "An apple is identical to
an
| orange" is illogical? Is it not because, in language, we must conform to
the
| logical structure of facts?
No. In *logic we must conform to logic. As to "the logical structure of
facts" I feel myself reaching for my red pen to write "unclear"
The statement "An apple is identical to an orange" is illogical in logic;
the language is being used a carrier.
Language has no problem with "An apple is identical to an orange". After
all, green ideas sleep furiously.
| And if this is so,
But it isn't
| the apriori foundation of the relationship between their meanings.
nuts
just one example of a posteriori relationship
Is it
| possible to refute this as metaphysical clap-trap?
See above
L
|