Question

Hello, I spoke with you at the between-semesters study hall program about two months ago, after the lecture (on biblical criticism in general). I mentioned there that I had a few nitpicky comments about inaccuracies in the book Truth and Not Stable. Here are some of the ones I remember now, at this distance in time:
1. On page 70 you wrote in parentheses, "(for if it assumed the conclusion, it would be valid)" — but that is not precise. There are arguments that assume the conclusion and are not valid:
Premise: P implies Q
Conclusion 1: P (not valid!)
Conclusion 2: P implies Q (the trivial use of assuming the conclusion)
In defense of the sentence you used, one could say that we assume the other side has intelligence (charity?) and therefore we would simply ignore the invalid conclusion. But it is still a mistake (certainly a nitpicky one on my part, but worth correcting).

2. On page 222 you argue that the debate over a certain idea "testifies to … a kind of existent (idea) with essential characteristics" — but the debate does not testify to the existence of the ideas (it does not strengthen Plato's side), but rather to the existence of the ideas in our consciousness, and Aristotle would agree with that too, no?

3. On page 223 you wrote, "When there is a distant object, there may be a dispute even about what is seen, and it is still clear that one is right and the other is wrong" — not precise; there are of course such disputes in which both sides are wrong. It would be more accurate to say that at least one is wrong.

As you could infer, I am writing this after reading up to page 223… Unfortunately I found several more examples like these, but I did not write them down and did not muster the strength to contact you about each and every one.

Thank you,