Verbal Disagreement Example Sentence

However, there are situations in which the parties concerned have to choose a specific interpretation. For example, there may be only one prize that can be awarded to the best student, and so it is necessary to choose between the two definitions to decide whether Cindy or Betty should receive the prize. So this is the second way to resolve a verbal quarrel with two definitions – we choose to adopt a specific definition taking very carefully into account the function it is to serve. If, in the example discussed, you have to choose between the definitions of teachers A and B, which definition will you choose and why? Philosophers are willing to talk about purely verbal quarrels, usually without much or explicit reflection on what they are, and much methodological importance is given to discovery whether a quarrel is only verbal or not. Indeed, this is a case in which I think the phrase “that verbal quarrel” applies in some contexts, but not in others. See ยง5 below for more details. This is not enough to settle things: if we were (for example) externs of the right kind on the content of faith, perhaps inspired by the castles in 1979, we might end up thinking that what a person believes is very much related to what his words mean in a public language. That is why I should point out that, in this passage, I have the content of the faith individualized so that they are much more closely related to the importance of the words of the subject by the Utterer than the importance of these words in the public language. (In fact, I tend to think that there are many “content” terms that apply to beliefs, and that these are just two of them.) I thank David Chalmers and Matthew Kennedy for their discussion on this point.

This still leaves open the possibility that the other conditions will not be met. For example, there could be a prima facie quarrel in the trade in meaningless words, in which the appearance of disagreement occurs by means other than different uses of language. Many thanks to Jonathan Schaffer who made me think about these matters. This should not deny that there is room for further improvements in VDDs by making it even clearer what types of explanations will be signaled by the explanation marker phrase “on the basis” in MVD. It would seem that there are still cases analogous to the Fred/Freda case, where there is a strange explanatory link between the difference in language between the parties and the appearance of differences of opinion between them, but in which we do not wish to conclude that the parties have a purely verbal quarrel. However, we have at least made progress in excluding some of the more immediate problems of this type. .