Support
Looper's Delight
|
Support |
|
|
> >> Let's take an example:- >> >> "Already it transpires that rigid adherence to serial systems is not >> exclusively considered to be a pre-requisite for good composition. " >> >> hmmm.............true or false? > > That's easy...neither, if you follow and use the gist of my original > response as a starting point (that's the premise for my response). The > gist is that some statements are neither true nor false, because they > aren't statements in the factual sense, only appear to be by syntax. There's no logic here. what are you saying? That because some sentences are neither true or false you can blandly apply that to any sentence? As the opposite of that sentence is disproved by counter example, then it has to be true. :-) Not only that, you provided a suitable counter example yourself. That's logic. > But > you are free to use a different set of premises to support a different > concusion....but then you wouldn't disputing my logic at that point, > just my initial assumptions. I'm disputing your conclusions. So far you neither justified "aesthetic non-cognitivity", nor demonstrated that it applied to composition. > > We are probably talking about diffrerent definitions of "objectivity" > here. I am using the more formal and philosophical concept. http://www.iep.utm.edu/o/objectiv.htm Don't think so, that looks ok to me. > Kris > > andy