This might be stupid, but it’s probably more intelligent than the ‘subjunctive mood’ grammar-joke I was going to tell.
Suppose I say, “Even if my mother were kidnapped by terrorists, I would still consider all terrorists freedom-fighters.”
Suppose I believe that with such conviction that I’m unable to imagine a reality in which, regardless of whether the physical state of my brain changes, it would not still be true that terrorists+mom=freedom fighters. (The “terms” of this “equation” don’t necessarily correspond with anything in the OP. The analogy is still functional).
In other words, I can dream up a scenario where terrorists are just terrorists, but I cannot fathom such a state of affairs actually coming to be.
So would this be subjunctively objective like your numerical epistemology or would it simply mean that my imagination is defective?
This might be stupid, but it’s probably more intelligent than the ‘subjunctive mood’ grammar-joke I was going to tell.
Suppose I say, “Even if my mother were kidnapped by terrorists, I would still consider all terrorists freedom-fighters.”
Suppose I believe that with such conviction that I’m unable to imagine a reality in which, regardless of whether the physical state of my brain changes, it would not still be true that terrorists+mom=freedom fighters. (The “terms” of this “equation” don’t necessarily correspond with anything in the OP. The analogy is still functional).
In other words, I can dream up a scenario where terrorists are just terrorists, but I cannot fathom such a state of affairs actually coming to be.
So would this be subjunctively objective like your numerical epistemology or would it simply mean that my imagination is defective?
BTW, I don’t truly believe anything I just wrote.