Talk:Two-dimensionalism

broadness
I don't like saying that two accounts of a philosophical problem contribute to the complete explanation. That seems too broad. Instead, maybe say two ways in which content may be determined?

I agree with the "two ways of content determination" emmendation. I was struck by the awkwardness of the entry when first reading it. Also, a more substantive issue: there is a great deal of disagreement about how to understand the two dimensions of content. Saying that one dimension treats terms as literally equivalent to a description begs the question against some prominent 2Ders like Chalmers. We need a more formal description of the general framework shared by all 2Dists and some acknowledgement of the differences in their interpretations of the framework.

Colin 12:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a pretty sloppy article overall. I think that this article should follow the broad outline of David Chalmers paper "the foundations of two-dimensional semantics", this is the broadest and most inclusive treatment of two-dimensionalism in the literature, as well as the most precise. 71.229.63.50 04:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help
I'm going to write Stalnaker's original presentation of the theory, but to do so I need to be able to create a 3x3 grid with spaces for 'T's and 'F's in each of the grids, including an extra (gridless) column and row on the x and y axes. Anyone know how to code this? Anyone know anyone that does?--Heyitspeter (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A good start might be Help:Table BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Heyitspeter (talk) 09:58, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories
from Categories
 * "Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C. For exceptions to this rule, see Eponymous categories and Non-diffusing subcategories below."

Leave this article with the categories it's currently in. In particular, categories like "Theories" and "Philosophical theories" are ludicrously overbroad and serve no purpose on this (or I would argue any other) article page. BrideOfKripkenstein (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree with you more. If you do not chose a theories category, it will inevitably be chose for you. This is also a matter brought up in the proposed MOS for philosophy. If I am going to be able to get a bot to update the index of philosophy according to categories, I need to have categories that make sense. That is to say, there needs to be a finite (small) number of categories of which it can be said that ALL philosophy articles fall within it. Please cooperate. Please observe that there are certain categories which are intended to be diffused, with very little in them. THOSE (i,e, a cat from that category tree) are the ones to make sure to include. Please do. Greg Bard (talk) 04:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't you get the bot to follow the cat-tree down to pages like these, vs. forming its library directly from theories labeled "Theories"? I don't understand what's going on, but I'm curious.--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as the bot situation goes, I am trying to create one based on Mathbot. The way mathbot works is by categories. However, math isn't the same as philosophy, in that the catgeories aren't so slam dunk. That is that for any math category, it is reasonable that EVERY article in it belongs under the math project. In philosophy, most categories are filled with a mix. So therefore, in order to make it work for us in phil, we have to designate a finite number of categories of which it can be said that ALL and ONLY philosophy articles will surely be in them. With this in mind, and from my observation categorizing things every (at least 90%) philosophy article SHOULD be capturable in no more than one of Philosophers, Philosophical literature, Philosophical concepts, or Philosophical theories. Other than that we have Philosophy and culture which will surely cover at least 8 of the remaining 10%. Although all numbers are approximate I call this a pretty good ontology. That is why I have been placing two dimensionalism under theories. Where it goes under theories I will leave up to you guys, even though it is pretty obviously a theory about language. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC)