<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Philosophical Progress · Pablo Stafforini</title><link>https://stafforini.com/tags/philosophical-progress/</link><description/><generator>Hugo -- gohugo.io</generator><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://stafforini.com/tags/philosophical-progress/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>human intelligence</title><link>https://stafforini.com/quotes/chalmers-human-intelligence/</link><pubDate>Mon, 06 May 2013 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://stafforini.com/quotes/chalmers-human-intelligence/</guid><description>&lt;![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Philosophy is still young, and the human capacity for reasoning is strong. In a scrutable world, truth may be within reach.</p></blockquote>
]]></description></item><item><title>formal semantics</title><link>https://stafforini.com/quotes/williamson-formal-semantics/</link><pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2004 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate><guid>https://stafforini.com/quotes/williamson-formal-semantics/</guid><description>&lt;![CDATA[<blockquote><p>An initial reaction is: how many closed problems are there in philosophy? But of course philosophy is so tolerant of dissent that even if a philosophical problem is solved, an ingenious philosopher can always challenge an assumption of the solution and still be counted as doing philosophy. Thus, as Austin noted, philosophical progress tends to be constituted by the creation of new disciplines, such as logic and formal semantics, less tolerant of philosophical dissent. I suspect that this gradual hiving off of bits of philosophy once philosophers have brought them under sufficient theoretical control will continue.</p></blockquote>
]]></description></item></channel></rss>