The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1241  Monday, 6 May 2002

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 03 May 2002 11:08:54 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 3 May 2002 19:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1189 Re: Hamlets and Movies

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 12:52:18 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[4]     From:   Bill Arnold <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 21:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1204 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[5]     From:   Martin Steward <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 3 May 2002 17:38:54 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 13.1206 Accents, Truths, Breathing

[6]     From:   Jane Drake Brody <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 11:25:42 EDT
        Subj:   Truth and Language


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 03 May 2002 11:08:54 -0700
Subject: 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

Martin Steward suggests that

>We might say, "There are no horses" when standing in a field devoid of horses.
>But that does not mean that we are saying "There are NO horses" (i.e.
>there is no such thing-in-the-world as a horse). By the same token, we
>might say, "There are horses" even in a field devoid of horses. The
>point is, we have an idea of what a horse is, and so even if we never
>saw one again, we could confidently say that "There are horses." The
>same applies to universal truth.

Not really.  A 'universal truth' would by definition be everywhere or
nowhere.  A local universal truth is impossible.  It's either universal
or local, but it can't logically be both.

An earlier version of a similar paradox (from Plato, I believe) went
something like this:  "I am Cretan.  All Cretans are liars".  The word
'all' is what makes the claim into a paradox.  If the speaker simply
said "Many Cretans are liars" or "My neighbours are all liars", then he
wouldn't be including himself in the statement, which is what produces
the paradox.

>The place harbouring universal truth
>might actually only be harbouring the idea of universal truth. And an
>idea is not the same thing as the thing-in-itself.

I'm not sure if this holds as well for universal truth as for horses.
One can have an idea of a horse with no horses existing physically in
our world.  A universal truth is itself an idea, however, so it can't be
checked against something extant "out there".  To have its idea is to
have it.

Cheers,
Se