On Fri, September 28, 2012 01:51, John F Sowa wrote:
> ...
> DF
>> But [Rom H] is claiming "a person’s body is not a part of that person
>> in the relevant sense." (01)
>> This depends upon what he means by "the relevant sense". (02)
> The key phrase is "the relevant sense". Consider the sentences, (03)
> 1. Bob thinks that the sky is blue. (04)
> 2. Bob's body thinks that the sky is blue. (05)
> 3. Bob's brain thinks that the sky is blue. (06)
> The first sentence is normal, but the other two are "weird".
> Nobody, except somebody "in the grip of a theory", would
> ever say anything like that. (07)
Agreed. (08)
> The point Rom was trying to make is that the word 'body' is not
> synonymous with 'person'. Those words are never used in ways
> that are interchangeable. (09)
Fine. But Rom was discussing parthood, not whether they are
synonymous or interchangeable. If he claimed that a body was
only a (proper) part of a person, that would mean that the concepts
were not synonymous or interchangeable. (010)
>...
> John (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (012)
|