tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post5804917397506867943..comments2024-03-25T14:25:25.102+00:00Comments on Poetry as Socio-proctology: Emrys Westacott's Existential fallacywindwheelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-85261545022434632482016-02-16T23:29:09.213+00:002016-02-16T23:29:09.213+00:00The point about i-language games is that they are ...The point about i-language games is that they are notoriously open AND defeasible. Otherwise they wouldn't be games but substantive simply.<br />There is no question that the learned Professor is committing to an existential fallacy. This is because there is an alethic aspect to his argument.<br />I have read the article you link to and consider it risible. So does everybody else- in practice.<br />windwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18099651877551933295noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1674709389503889160.post-79096292681488811212016-02-16T16:11:43.145+00:002016-02-16T16:11:43.145+00:00Utterly wrong. There is no 'existential fallac...Utterly wrong. There is no 'existential fallacy' in what you quote since it is not a logical proposition but part of a specific i-Language Game. Kindly look up the Stanford article by the Professor-http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/respect/.<br />It wouldn't matter in the least if 'For a given human, what is shared with all Humanity, and which is also of salience in this context, might well be the empty set.' because the subject is at liberty to introduce any convention she pleases to guarantee the reverse. Notice, 'Respect' is defined as something generated autonomously by the subject. Categorical arguments, in this context, can at best generate antinomies. They can't be shown to be fallacious simply.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com