Unlike Descartes, We Own And Use Our

The Strategy Of Semantic Ascent Is That It Carries The Discussion Into A Domain Where Both Parties Are Better Agreed On The Objects (viz., Words) And On The Main Terms Connecting Them. Words, Or Their Inscriptions, Unlike Points, Miles, Classes And The Rest, Are Tangible Objects Of The Size So Popular In The Marketplace, Where Men Of Unlike Conceptual Schemes Communicate At Their Best. The Strategy Is One Of Ascending To A Common Part Of Two Fundamentally Disparate Conceptual Schemes, The Better To Discuss The Disparate Foundations. No Wonder It Helps In Philosophy.

Our Talk Of External Things, Our Very Notion Of Things, Is Just A Conceptual Apparatus That Helps Us To Foresee And Control The Triggerings Of Our Sensory Receptors In The Light Of Previous Triggering Of Our Sensory Receptors.

... Two Men Could Be Just Alike In All Their Dispositions To Verbal Behavior Under All Possible Sensory Stimulations, And Yet Themeanings Or Ideas Expressed In Their Identically Triggered And Identically Sounding Utterances Could Diverge Radically, For The Two Men, In A Wide Range Of Cases.

If There Is A Case For Mental Events And Mental States, It Must Be That The Positing Of Them, Like The Positing Of Molecules, Hassome Indirect Systematic Efficacy In The Development Of Theory.

Treating 'water' As A Name Of A Single Scattered Object Is Not Intended To Enable Us To Dispense With General Terms And Plurality Of Reference. Scatter Is In Fact An Inconsequential Detail.