🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 16, 9:53 am, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2008 15:29:46 -0700 (PDT), R. Srinivasan
> <sradh...@in.ibm.com> said:
>
> > On May 15, 10:55 pm, Chris Menzel <cmen...@remove-this.tamu.edu>
> > wrote:
> >> On Wed, 14 May 2008 22:36:55 -0700 (PDT), R. Srinivasan
> >> <sradh...@in.ibm.com> said:
>
> >> > ...  As long as NAFL is not acknowledged by the academic community,
> >> > all discussions of "truth" are farcical. Dishonest wheeler-dealers
> >> > do not even have the right to even utter the word "truth" and their
> >> > dishonest and irrelelvant musings on this subject as best ignored.
>
> >> Just smile, nod, and back away slowly, folks...try not to look
> >> frightened...that's it...that's it...slowly now...
>
> > Pathetic, timid response from an alleged philosopher.
>
> Lighten up, pally.  Your outburst above is simply ludicrous.  You may
> well be on to something.  But to dismiss everything that has been done
> on truth from Tarski to the present as "farcical" because your own work
> has not received the attention you think it deserves is, well, a piece
> of crankery of the highest order.  Don't take yourself so seriously.  
>
What I find farcical is the manner in which my (i.e., NAFL's) serious
and legitimate objections to classical truth are being ignored. I am
reminded of a scene in one those "Carry on" series of movies, in which
the main characters go to a hotel on vacation. Unfortunately, the
hotel construction starts to collapse while they are having food.
Under completely chaotic conditions (roof collapsing, water flooding)
these guys are determined to pretend that all is well, and make small
talk along the lines of "would you like your tea with sugar", etc.

Regards, RS
>
> > NAFL is a new logic and provides, among other stuff, a new philosophy
> > of truth. To pretend that NAFL does not exist, as philosphers have
> > been doing for 6 years now, is shameful dishonesty.
>
> There are, perhaps, other explanations you might consider.