transitionsynthesis

@Logikal Well there are features of propositions that change when you introduce the term belief. The word 'belief' introduces a non-extensional context. In an extensional context, any true proposition can be substituted for any other without change to the truth-value. But when the word 'belief' is introduced this substitution procedure fails. So for example if we have 'S believes that '2+2=4'' and we replace '2+2=4' with some more complex truth of number theory, the resulting sentence can come out false (S may know basic addition but nothing about prime numbers, for example).

@Logikal The question wasn't whether there is a difference between not and non, it was a question of scope distinctions on negation when the belief operator is introduced.

It doesn't matter if you feel the comments aren't enough to warrant a rejection. It's not as though the paper is default to be accepted unless the reviewer can prove otherwise. There is nothing you can or should do about it except improve the paper as best you can on the basis of the comments you received and move on to the next journal.

So the criterion is that they're really powerful. So any really powerful imperial regime is Nazi? That can't be the argument.

taking over Indo-China is territorial expansion, but the point is that not all territorial expansion is Nazism, nor is all use of propaganda to justify territorial expansion in a democratic constituency Nazism. To act as though the Nazis invented brutal imeprial regimes is to give the Nazis way too much credit. Again, find the first human civilization and you can already find elements of what Russell is talking about. Is the US more sophisticated? Sure, but there's lots of reasons for that and many dynamics that are not at all the same as the dynamics in Nazi Germany.

Should we call ancient Athens Nazis since they engaged in brutal territorial expansion and used propaganda? I guess I'm not clear on what criterion here is doing the work.

You'd have to have a notion of what it is to be a 'Nazi' that is so inclusive as to be practically worthless. For all the failings of US foreign policy, it seems pretty irresponsible to equivocate the two. Moreover, the Nazis have no special claim to brutal imperialism, which has been a time-honored tradition since human civilizations have existed. We can call any oppressive regime Nazis if we want, but I would beware those who paint different things as the same.

@polcott Hey I recognize you! If you really think this could work it would require perhaps multiple books to actually work it through. I have no idea what you're saying in these few sentences. Instead of creating new accounts trying to convince people on here, you'd be much better off writing the darn book. If you actually know what you are talking about, you should be able to do it. Write up a few chapters and a precis and see if you can get a contract from a reputable publisher, how sweet would that be?

The closest thing I can think of is Lukasiewicz and other Polish logicians in 1920-1939. My sense is that these guys thought they were developing the correct theory of logic, making genuine scientific discoveries that outstripped Aristotle, the Stoics, Frege, etc. These were all logicians who were also philosophically oriented, having studied with people like Husserl and Twardowski. This was a time when mathematical logic and philosophy were not nearly as insulated as they are now in university departments.books.google.com/books/about/…

The closest thing I can think of that's still going strong today is certain parts of modal metaphysics, where some philosophers hold that modal logic is a theory of the nature of necessity and possibility. [Williams' Modal Logic as Metaphysics is a good example of this.

My sense is that your question in the title and the question you pose in the final sentence of the body paragraph would have very different answers. I would think that declaring Hegel to BE a Neoplatonist would be a rather unorthodox and perhaps provocative view among Hegel scholars. By contrast, my sense is that the INFLUENCE on Hegel of Neoplatonist thinkers is widely acknowledged in a word but that there isn't all that much detailed scholarship on the issue. Seems like the book you're reading might be as good a place as any to get a bearing.