|
I defined the word for him the way I was using it, and the way philosophers use it when talking about God. I don't know what more he wants. Philosophy can be a technical discipline, and so sometimes they use words in technical ways that differ from the ways in which the dictionary defines them. When it's clear that someone doesn't understand the way in which I'm using a word, I try to define it. I do understand that most people here lack formal training, so I try to be patient. If the person insists on continuing to use a different definition, it's not a conversation I can have. If someone suggests the dictionary definition is better, I get to be a little bit insulting.
That being said, let me try and define the notion of possible world.
A, the actual world, is the set of all propositions that are true. A world, in general, is a set containing the maximal number of true propositions, so we can speak of propositions being true in possible world W. Take proposition p, and assume that it is false in A but possibly true in A. That means that there is some world W in which p is true. Statements which are necessarily true (like 2+2=4) are true in all possible worlds. Statements which are necessarily false (2+2=5) are true in no possible worlds. I'm not sure this is as clear as it could be -- I'll look up how Plantinga defines them when I get home from work.
__________________
"Die Deutschen meinen, daß die Kraft sich in Härte und Grausamkeit offenbaren müsse, sie unterwerfen sich dann gerne und mit Bewunderung:[...]. Daß es Kraft giebt in der Milde und Stille, das glauben sie nicht leicht."
"The Germans believe that power must reveal itself in hardness and cruelty and then submit themselves gladly and with admiration[...]. They do not believe readily that there is power in meekness and calm."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
|