Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
<br>mac, windows render copyleft as: 🄯<br>]
<br>mac, windows render copyleft as: 🄯<br>]
</center><br><br>
</center><br><br>
In the linked clip (clips load muted) I mention the ], a distinctive version of which, essentially the Aristotelian one but with 'the world' i.e. the one real physical world, replaced by 'a world', I hold as a fundament. The example given I believe in the clip being the world of Dickens Oliver Twist. <br><br>This formulation, which I've held since my early 30s, is I believe impervious to objections such as Lakoff states when he says that it has been refuted on the physical basis in the Aristotelian original, which my adaptation, being if you will metaphorical truth, doesn't suffer from. As far as having a theory of the world or no, this in my account, is always given by the story teller(s) of the world, in the example, Dickens.<br><br>Truthmaker theory, as characterized by the lede to the Stanford article on it, is IMHO a screed against modern philosophy, a cringeworthy self-own of the metaphysicians, and/or ].</blockquote>
In the linked clip (clips load muted) I mention the ], a distinctive version of which, essentially the Aristotelian one but with 'the world' i.e. the one real physical world, replaced by 'a world', I hold as a fundament. The example given I believe in the clip being the world of Dickens Oliver Twist. <br><br>This formulation, which I've held since my early 30s, is I believe impervious to objections such as Lakoff states when he says that it has been refuted on the physical basis in the Aristotelian original, which my adaptation, being if you will metaphorical truth, doesn't suffer from. As far as having a theory of the world or no, this in my account, is always given by the story teller(s) of the world, in the example, Dickens.<br><br>Truthmaker theory, as characterized by the lede to the Stanford article on it, is IMHO a screed against modern philosophy, a cringeworthy self-own of the metaphysicians, and/or ].</center></blockquote>
In the linked clip (clips load muted) I mention the correspondence theory of truth, a distinctive version of which, essentially the Aristotelian one but with 'the world' i.e. the one real physical world, replaced by 'a world', I hold as a fundament. The example given I believe in the clip being the world of Dickens Oliver Twist.
This formulation, which I've held since my early 30s, is I believe impervious to objections such as Lakoff states when he says that it has been refuted on the physical basis in the Aristotelian original, which my adaptation, being if you will metaphorical truth, doesn't suffer from. As far as having a theory of the world or no, this in my account, is always given by the story teller(s) of the world, in the example, Dickens.
Truthmaker theory, as characterized by the lede to the Stanford article on it, is IMHO a screed against modern philosophy, a cringeworthy self-own of the metaphysicians, and/or metaphysics.
