Exact(1)
There is an ambiguity here: is an authoritative person one who is speaking the truth with respect to the particular utterance in question, or one who is generally truthful?
Similar(59)
It is here that fictionalism comes to the rescue: if we suppose that the utterances in question are made in a fictional spirit, then eliminativist antirealism about (say) mathematics does not commit ordinary speakers of massive error.
The counselees were found to ask relatively few questions compared to counsellors and to spend only a mean of 0.6/40.4, that is, 2% of their utterances, in asking questions (Table 3).
Of course, interpreting the philosophers we have mentioned is a sensitive issue; and many commentators, especially Western ones who have wanted to make sense of their chosen philosopher whilst subscribing to the LNC, have suggested that the contradictory utterances of the philosopher in question are not really contradictory.
However that may be, Husserl construes (sub- propositional contentsub- propositionalnings") as two-facontentswith the generespectiveg function plus the relevant context of utterance (if any) determeaningshe content in question.
One might claim that 'believes' (and its fellows) express a two place relation between an agent and some kind of utterance-like entity, where the embedded sentence functions as a representer of the utterance-like entity that the agent in question bears the relation to.
But that presupposes that the gentleman in question always determines his utterances' reception.
The lemma in question states that my utterances of "I'm a brain in a vat" are true only if my "I" tokens refer to me and my 'brain-in-a-vat' tokens refer to brains in vats [Khlentzos 2004].
Success in this enterprise would necessarily involve attributing beliefs and desires to the being in question, in light of which its utterances make sense.
So, her utterance in \(w\) determines a Kaplanian context.
"Huh?" is a much-maligned utterance in English.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.
Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com