Saturday, May 17, 2008

here is a part of the draft of my thesis proposal, tell me what you find here, it has already been turned in, but comments are aprecciated for future work!
In the effort of filtering possibility from conceivability claims, many problems arise. In order to come to possibility from conceivability a method can be followed. Nevertheless the method is problematic given the overlapping of steps. I will briefly explain how the method works, the reason for following that order of steps and where it is that the overlapping takes place. It is in the overlapping where I will spend more time comparing the problem of confusing epistemology with metaphysics when it comes to different perspectives of two-dimensionalism. The last topic has to do with arguments that show a problematic view of two-dimensionalism and the confusion of epistemology and metaphysics and mistreatment of descriptions. I have not added a sufficient explanation yet since more information is required at this point, but those issues will be addressed in a future draft.

What I want to do with this research is try to find more complete ways to address the problem of the overlapping steps and their similitude with two-dimensionalism. It is my purpose to try to avoid falling under the reliance on a confusing view of metaphysics. Here is an overview of the main topics that I want to address (this far)
  1. Filtering possibility: How is it that a conceivable state of affairs could make reference to impossible states of affairs?
  2. Method: intuition… epistemology… metaphysics…
  3. Overlapping of steps 1^2 and 2^ 3
  4. Incomplete nature of the world
  5. Given (3) ^ (4) possible confusion of metaphysics and epistemology
  6. Avoiding non-essential generalizations
  7. Two-dimensionalism semantics
  8. Possible additions that I would like to address but have not read enough yet

Filtering possibility
Conceivability can be found in some of the arguments concerning fundamental philosophical questions. This fact happens to be problematic since a conceivable claim that could be used for further theoretical relevance might be resting in weak foundations attributing false possibility. A conceivable claim is not necessarily an argument for the possibility of some states of affairs. This will be supported by a three step method that consists of an intuition claim, an epistemic claim and a metaphysical filter. After these three steps the conceivability argument becomes a metaphysical possibility if it doesn’t show any problematic pattern in its way to the third step.

A possible method

Thus the method consists of the following:

1. Intuitive claim... what is it that we think we know from x(identify soundness of concepts)

2. Epistemic-modal claim… what is it that could be true of x given what we know and what we have proved to be truth of x (identify validity of concepts). In this step the target is the conceptual realm.

3. Metaphysical filter… what is it that is true of x given the nature of the world (identify the relation of the full argument with the way that the world is)

Notice that [(1) ^ (2)] and [(2) ^ (3)] are closely related, and that they might be confused, respectively, as one single step.


my apy polly logies!!!

ok sorry i had forgot about this blog thing. this semester was super packed, but summer is here... finally!!!!!!!! its funny because i feel like writing, it must be the weather, which is one of those things that you just and say only in El Paso, or maybe it is due to global warming, or global cooling, but the weather here is weird. anyways i'll try to post more, i have a lot to say and a lot to be corrected so please leave comments, feedback is good