Lexicon of Arguments

Philosophical and Scientific Issues in Dispute
 
[german]


Complaints - Corrections

Table
Concepts
Versus
Sc. Camps
Theses I
Theses II

Concept/Author*  

What is wrong?
Page
Other metadata
Translation
Excerpt or content
Other

Correction: Year / Place / Page
/ /

Correction:
(max 500 charact.)

Your username*
or User-ID

Email address*

The complaint
will not be published.

 
Stalnaker I 260
Objective Self/Nagel/NagelVsOntological View: if "being me" was to be an objective property, the assumption collapses that it could also be in relation to anyone else. But if it is an aspect of the objective TN, I can ask again "Which of these people am I".
No matter to what extent we complete the concept of non-centered world, the fact that I’m TN will be missing.
Cf. >Centered worlds.
Stalnaker pro. - But: the objective property fulfills two conditions:
1) only TN has it
2) Only the person who has it can attribute it.
Problem: "TN’s self-property" is non-rigid. - There are possible worlds where TN and SK are reversed.
>Rigidity, >Possible worlds.
Stalnaker I 262
True Self/Nagel: is not the perspective and has no perspective. (In the non-centric world) - that’s what it is about when I look at the world as a whole and ask: "How can I be TN?" - It’s not about ontology.
Stalnaker I 263
StalnakerVsNagel: the fact that I can imagine a situation does not mean that I could be in it - see.
StalnakerVsNagel.

Found an error? Use our Complaint Form. Perhaps someone forgot to close a bracket? A page number is wrong?
Help us to improve our lexicon.
However, if you are of a different opinion, as regards the validity of the argument, post your own argument beside the contested one.
The correction will be sent to the contributor of the original entry to get his opinion about.