 |
 |
----- 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