There Is No Success Or Failure In

Whatever Is Referred To Must Exist. Let Us Call This The Axiom Of Existence.

Our Tools Are Extensions Of Our Purposes, And So We Find It Natural To Make Metaphorical Attributions Of Intentionality To Them; But I Take It No Philosophical Ice Is Cut By Such Examples.

The General Nature Of The Speech Act Fallacy Can Be Stated As Follows, Using "good" As Our Example. Calling Something Good Is Characteristically Praising Or Commending Or Recommending It, Etc. But It Is A Fallacy To Infer From This That The Meaning Of "good" Is Explained By Saying It Is Used To Perform The Act Of Commendation.

Materialism Ends Up Denying The Existence Of Any Irreducible Subjective Qualitative States Of Sentience Or Awareness.

Where Questions Of Style And Exposition Are Concerned I Try To Follow A Simple Maxim: If You Can't Say It Clearly You Don't Understand It Yourself.