As already posted below, I try klarzuwerden what is meant by "content" of mental states. Therefore, I try to understand what are propositions that are expressed as their content like. To understand what propositions, I try to understand what are abstract objects - because propositions are considered as abstract objects like.
I find it intuitively plausible to assume first that there is something else than that "tangible" things that touch you see, etc., may or parts that make up these things. It can of course be other items that we do not because of our perception of limitations to exercise, so it's perhaps better to speak here of objects that exist in space and time. (Ontological remark). I also find it implausible that we could have knowledge of such non-tangible items. How does it work because if we do not use these objects in (causal, spatial, temporal) contact interaction or the like can occur? (Epistemic comment)
It is nice and also from a systematic perspective helpful if you can talk about abstract objects. (For example, if our modal language by means of possible worlds that exist in maximally consistent sets of propositions explains.) I got the impression that many philosophers consider abstract objects as more than a useful tool. So my question is: we need to seriously argue that there are abstract objects? If so, what are the reasons? Why are abstract objects to be more than a useful fiction?
As always grateful for helpful comments
Eva
0 comments:
Post a Comment