Talk:Disquotational principle

Philosophy: Logic / Language Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic
	Philosophy of language

Linguistics: Philosophy of language

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Philosophy of language task force.

This article must be missing something edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

It seems a straight-forward resolution of the paradox is, for example, to add the proposition "Sally does not believe Tully is Cicero." Surely there must be someone other than little old me to have proposed this resolution. Jim Bowery (talk) 20:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. It is entirely unclear as to what sort of reasoning one is allowed to do. Common sense reasoning? Something else? Can I make deductions about beliefs? Why or why not? Likewise, for the last example, can I not deduce that Pierre simply does not know that these two Paderewski's are the same? (The Paderewski of the first over-heard discussion and the Paderewski of the second conversation). Is there some implicit assumption of Identity of indiscernibles clouding the issue, even though the two Paderewskis are clearly distinguishable, since the are parts of different conversations? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic