[b]Donald Davidson
Nothing in the world, no object or event, would be true or false if there were not thinking creatures. [/b]
Try proving it though.
There is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers and linguists have supposed. There is therefore no such thing to be learned, mastered, or born with. We must give up the idea of a clearly defined shared structure which language-users acquire and then apply to cases.
Of course without language none of this gets said.
There are three basic problems: how a mind can know the world of nature, how it is possible for one mind to know another, and how it is possible to know the contents of our own minds without resort to observation or evidence. It is a mistake, I shall urge, to suppose that these questions can be collapsed into two, or taken into isolation.
We’ll need a fucking context, he thought.
Mental events such as perceivings, rememberings, decisions, and actions resist capture in the net of physical theory.
Well, that’s what the ghost in the machine is for.
Even if someone knew the entire physical history of the world, and every mental event were identical with a physical, it would not follow that he could predict or explain a single mental event (so described, of course).
Of course no one does, though, do they?
Terminological infelicities have a way of breeding conceptual confusion.
And felicity has always been problematic here to say the least.