tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post3607942946437758734..comments2024-03-28T19:56:42.305-05:00Comments on Alexander Pruss's Blog: Solipsism, presentism, actualismAlexander R Prusshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3891434218564545511.post-18034329535438163672013-02-27T13:37:39.649-06:002013-02-27T13:37:39.649-06:00When you type the statement "I am sitting&quo...When you type the statement "I am sitting" it is (hopefully) true. But it makes no claim at remaining true forever. Indeed, I think that would be very odd indeed, and would run counter our intuitive grasp of what the written text means. The written text means, to any normal reading, "the writer was sitting when he wrote this". It most certainly does NOT mean "the writer is forever sitting" in the normal, commonsense consciousness.<br /><br />As to whether "now" is like "I", I think it is, but that it doesn't entail what you think it entails. The term "I" does not belong uniquely to you, but can be used by anyone in <i>de se</i> statements. Thus the normal, proper way to interpret an "I" statement is to relativize it to which person uttered it, and to recognize that it might cease to be true if uttered by someone else. For example, if you and I both said "I am sitting" at the same time, but only one of us actually was sitting, it follows that one must relativize which "I" they are thinking of when they decide whether the statement is true or not. So it is for "now", which we always relativize as to when the thing was written (or even spoken, since sometimes things happen rather quickly... e.g. "Oh great! Now my head itches again"). So, since we naturally relativize such things, and alter them to "was" when we read a statement written sufficiently long ago, it follows that the intuitively basic position is A-theory (which is what the A-theorist usually claims anyway).<br /><br />You say that, when communication goes right, you shouldn't express things that you didn't communicate. I disagree. For example, even the statement "I am sitting", if uttered by you, expresses facts to me about a philosopher whose work I admire, even though you are not communicating that directly (or even intending it indirectly, hope!). So, we always express things beyond what we communicate, and expect the listener to relativize what we said and change their personal beliefs about the world accordingly. "I am sitting" produces many new beliefs in my mind that it will not produce in someone else's (for example, to someone else, you may be a philosopher they find infuriating, or that they never heard of).<br /><br />Do you see where I'm coming from (or... was coming from, when I wrote this)?Michael Gonzalezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05279261871735286117noreply@blogger.com