To understand the tma we should follow a rule of polemical force as well as a rule of validity. Following just the latter vlastos renders the explicit theory of forms and the two suppressed premises as an inconsistent triad. But the rule of polemical force indicates that the explicit theory is ambivalent. Just one f-Ness must be the basis, Either for any f thing being f, Or for any set of f things being just that set. It cannot be the (...) basis for all f things being f. (shrink)

Against Richard Taylor's position (Action and Purpose,Prentice Hall,1966) that there is some further factor in agency that in one of its roles supplements the contingency of an action that is freely performed.

McTaggart maintained that, without the kind of change which events undergo in passing from the future through the present into the past, how things are would be fundamentally different from how they appear. More particularly Without A-change there could be no change at all. Without any change there could be no time. Without A-change there could be no time.

Wittgenstein argues that understanding a language consists of mastery of techniques for playing language?games rather than some sort of mental state or episode such as mental imagery, rule invocation, or atmosphere investing our experience of words. His elimination of the three mentalistic alternatives presupposes the peculiar distinction, or its virtual lack, between speaker and listener presupposed by his positive claim, instead of establishing the latter. This paper vindicates the episodic nature of certain types of understanding, and gives each of his (...) three alternatives a suitably qualified role therein, by drawing the distinctions in a less biassed way. (shrink)

Austin argued that ‘if’ has sometimes a non-conditional function, his reason being that some types of if-statement are deviant by two criteria which establish a norm. Following Pears more or less closely, I shall refer to applications of these criteria as the contrapositive and nondetachment tests, and to any if-statement which fails at least one test as a pseudoconditional, or more briefly as a pseudo. Thus, to turn directly to the narrower subject of this paper- the singularity Austin exposed in (...) a thesis of Moore's - ‘He can, if he chooses’ fails either test. It does not entail ‘lf he cannot, he does not choose to’. Nor does it entail ‘He can’. Hence, it is doubly pseudo - and the same applies after systematic variation in grammatical person, tense and mood. (shrink)