{"id":3369,"date":"2012-11-15T07:24:58","date_gmt":"2012-11-15T06:24:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/?p=3369"},"modified":"2012-11-15T07:24:58","modified_gmt":"2012-11-15T06:24:58","slug":"another-case-of-someone-who-intuited-the-modal-fallacy-early-on","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/2012\/11\/another-case-of-someone-who-intuited-the-modal-fallacy-early-on\/","title":{"rendered":"Another case of someone who intuited the modal fallacy early on?"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/moore\/#2\" target=\"_blank\">http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/<wbr>entries\/moore\/#2<\/wbr><\/a><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>So, on the face of it, this thesis has here been inferred from Leibniz\u2019 Law. Moore observes, however, that the step from (1) to (2) is invalid; it confuses the necessity of a connection with the necessity of the consequent. In ordinary language this distinction is not clearly marked, although it is easy to draw it with a suitable formal language.<\/p>\n<p>Moore&#8217;s argument here is a sophisticated piece of informal modal logic; but whether it really gets to the heart of the motivation for Bradley&#8217;s Absolute idealism can be doubted. My own view is that Bradley&#8217;s dialectic rests on a different thesis about the inadequacy of thought as a representation of reality, and thus that one has to dig rather deeper into Bradley&#8217;s idealist metaphysics both to extract the grounds for his monism and to exhibit what is wrong with it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Interesting. GE Moore is in good company, along with <a href=\"http:\/\/www.honestthinking.org\/en\/pub\/HT.2005.06.JTA.Leibniz_on_hypothetical_necessity.htm\" target=\"_blank\">Leibniz<\/a>.<span style=\"color: #888888;\"><br \/>\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>http:\/\/plato.stanford.edu\/entries\/moore\/#2 So, on the face of it, this thesis has here been inferred from Leibniz\u2019 Law. Moore observes, however, that the step from (1) to (2) is invalid; it confuses the necessity of a connection with the necessity of the consequent. In ordinary language this distinction is not clearly marked, although it is easy to [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[14],"class_list":["post-3369","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","tag-modal","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3369","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3369"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3369\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3370,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3369\/revisions\/3370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3369"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3369"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/emilkirkegaard.dk\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3369"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}