Posted: Feb 24, 2012 2:32 am
logical bob wrote:I'm not sure why you/Searle equate relativism with arbitrariness. We don't define the word cat arbitrarily but for a specific purpose - to make it easier to talk about those creatures that haz cheezeburger.
By "arbitrary/-ily" Searle doesn't mean "at random" or "for no reason or purpose" but "subject to our free will".
logical bob wrote:
And yes, the existence of cats is a fact. As I've said repeatedly in this thread, relativism is not the denial that there are facts and facts are not absolute truths.
"There are cats" is a true statement given the actual meaning of "cat"; and if "cat" meant "unicorn", then it would be a false statement. But, strictly speaking, "cat" = "felis catus" and "cat" = "unicorn" are actually two different concepts: "cat1" = "felis catus" and "cat2" = "unicorn". "There are cats1" is true and "There are cats2" is false, and there is no point in calling this truth/falsity nonabsolute.