Replies to Kornblith, Jackson and Moore

Abstract

What if Graham Priest vehemently denies, as indeed he would, that he is advocating any change of meaning, even 'strictly speaking' (cf. 2007: 89-90)? It is a fair question. I cannot claim any special authority on the rules that govern the workings of those words in the English language, nor do I have anything helpful to say about how such rules are discerned. Still, I think Priest would be wrong if he denied this. Here I agree with Williamson, that somebody's philosophical views can lead him or her to deny the most remarkable things. As it happens, Williamson would not share my inclination to apply that thought to this case (cf. 2007: 126). Nor, of course, would he share my inclination to apply that thought to some of the things that he himself denies, for instance that the original question is a question about the workings of the word 'dry'. But that nicely allows me to finish on what I am sure is a note of consent between us: one of the joys of philosophy is to grapple with powerful arguments advanced by extraordinarily intelligent, serious individuals for conclusions that one takes to be preposterous.10