Sports Unlimited Inc., offering a large collection of sports gear such as home gyms, team uniforms and soccer shoes. …
Blogs / eblog
View all »
Latest posts
-
Sports Gear
http://inconsistent.typepad.com/home/2008/07/sports-gear.html -
Ralph Lauren Sunglasses
http://inconsistent.typepad.com/home/2008/07/ralph-lauren-su.htmlSunglass Extreme offering a large selection of name brand sunglasses including. Ray Ban sunglasses, Bolle Sunglasses and Ralph Lauren Sunglasses. …
-
7/1/08
http://inconsistent.typepad.com/home/2008/07/7108.html7/1/08 …
View all »
37 blog reactions
-
Inconsistent Thoughts
http://inconsistentthoughts.wordpress.comAnother angle on Composition as Identity (CID). I now think that my earlier approach is misguided. Lewis’ argument was pretty straightforward. CID is true, and so the axiom of unrestricted composition just commits us to things (fusions or composite objects) which are identical to things (their parts) we already believed in. This is
-
Reply to Friesen
http://inconsistentthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/06/09/reply-t...an approach to understanding the thesis of Composition as Identity (CID) that is inspired by the work of Donald Baxter. I came across this paper by Lowell Friesen that challenges Baxter’s view and I want to reply to one of his criticisms which also applies to
-
Philosophy Exam - First Year
http://sosarahsays.blogspot.com/2008/06/philosophy-exam-firs...Inconsistent Thoughts. Thought it was funny and wanted to repost. Philosophy Exam – First Year Answer two questions Two hours 1. Patch together some things you have heard in lectures, in no particular order. 2. Has this question vexed philosophers for centuries?
-
Many-One Identity
http://inconsistentthoughts.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/many-on...Another angle on Composition as Identity (CID). I now think that my earlier approach is misguided. Lewis' argument was pretty straightforward. CID is true, and so the axiom of unrestricted composition just commits us to things (fusions or composite objects) which are identical to things (their parts) we already believed in. This is
-
Genius
http://geniusnz.blogspot.comso the rules of debate should be such as to encourage content over distractions and dirty tricks. However, even if Richard is right this would be "naive utilitarianism" (Richard’s word for bad act utilitarianism) because this communication game has universibility issues. Simply, academia will descend into bad politics even if he academics are generally “well meaning” (as I suggest are most politicians). Debates would become full of invincible arguments and unproductive
-
littleblackjournal[dot]com
http://littleblackjournal.wordpress.comBlogroll Feminist Philosophers Inconsistent Thoughts WordPress.com WordPress.org
-
the mode of argument
http://littleblackjournal.wordpress.com/2008/05/25/the-mode-...article, for example, wonders whether analytical philosophy asks too many questions about the propositor than about the issue itself. A little like taking sides in an intellectual discussion. Similarly, this article sparked off a series of thoughts by the author on how trends, as he terms it, affects the way philosophers and all participants in arguments in general moderate the tone of their argument to
-
The communication game
http://geniusnz.blogspot.com/2008/05/communication-game.htmljournal
-
Invincible arguments
http://geniusnz.blogspot.com/2008/05/invincible-arguments.ht...Colin's blog which referred to debates like the RB/RC debate as being of concern, (although the main focus was probably more formal issues like difficulty of publishing fringe ideas). RB agreed and RC turned up and both parties began to engaging in a bit of "thread jacking" . Somewhat more so in the case of Richard C who justified it by saying that it was important to correct the record in order to promote truth seeking. I pointed out in a post script that I found it a bit ironic considering the post topic.
-
Richard's Quick Poll
http://geniusnz.blogspot.com/2008/05/richards-quick-poll.htm...this has become an unproductive debate as argued by both Richard B and Ricard C. Richard B expresses his desire to stop debating it but admits his inability while Richard C 'threatens' to disengage and keeps failing presumably due to his desire to correct the record because there is something wrong on the internet. It seems like both are caught in a psychological trap. I was hoping Richard B would take that as an excuse to disengage - as it is Richard C may disengage instead - in which case all the better.
