Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!caip!nike!oliveb!glacier!kestrel!ladkin
From: ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (Peter Ladkin)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Emotion and Logic
Message-ID: <12467@kestrel.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 16-Sep-86 00:27:39 EDT
Article-I.D.: kestrel.12467
Posted: Tue Sep 16 00:27:39 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Sep-86 07:26:26 EDT
References: <11700119@inmet> <11700370@inmet> <698@ihlpf.UUCP> <485@ccd700.UUCP>
Organization: Kestrel Institute, Palo Alto, CA
Lines: 15

In article <485@ccd700.UUCP>, jim@ccd700.UUCP (prototype account) writes:

> In order for the laws of arithmetic to be *meaningful*, 
> they must mean the same thing to everyone. 

Are you familiar with the arguments of Quine that there is no
such attribute as *meaning the same thing* ?
However, he doesn't argue that everything is meaningless.

So his arguments entail the falsity of your statement.
For your statement to be true,  one of his arguments 
must be incorrect. Which one?

Peter Ladkin
ladkin@kestrel.arpa