some fixes

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 16 deletions

diff --git a/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex b/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
index 31fe124..79f8b7a 100644
--- a/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
+++ b/essays/flaws_underlying_beliefs.tex
@@ -1,8 +1,7 @@
 \chapter{The Flaws Underlying Beliefs}
 
-
 We begin with the question of whether there is a realm beyond my 
-"immediate experience." Does the Empire State Building continue to exist 
+"immediate experience." Does the \textsc{Empire State Building} continue to exist 
 even when I am not looking at it? If either of these questions can be asked, 
 then there must indeed be a realm beyond my experience. If I can ask 
 whether there is a realm beyond my experience, then the answer must be 
@@ -37,15 +36,15 @@ sense and the natural language, one which judges them by reference to
 aspects of themselves. 
 
 As an example of the application of our initial result to specific 
-questions of belief, consider the question of whether the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If this question is 
+questions of belief, consider the question of whether the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it. If this question is 
 even meaningful, then there has to be a realm in which the nonexperienced 
-Empire State Building does or does not exist. This realm is precisely the 
-realm beyond my experience. The question of whether the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not Jooking at it depends on the very 
+\textsc{Empire State Building} does or does not exist. This realm is precisely the 
+realm beyond my experience. The question of whether the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it depends on the very 
 assertion, about the existence of a realm beyond my experience, which we 
-found to be nonsubstantive. Thus, the assertion that the Empire State 
-Building continues to exist when I am not looking at it must also be 
+found to be nonsubstantive. Thus, the assertion that the \textsc{Empire State 
+Building} continues to exist when I am not looking at it must also be 
 considered as nonsubstantive or meaningless, as a special case of a 
 definitional trick. 
 
@@ -62,9 +61,9 @@ Parallel to our analysis of belief-assertions or the realm beyond my
 experience, we can make an analysis of beliefs as mental acts. (We 
 understand a belief to be an assertion referring to the realm beyond my 
 experience, or to be the mental act of which the assertion is the verbal 
-formulation.) Introspectively, what do I do when I believe that the Empire 
-State Building exists even though I am not looking at it? I imagine the 
-Empire State Building, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture 
+formulation.) Introspectively, what do I do when I believe that the \textsc{Empire 
+State Building} exists even though I am not looking at it? I imagine the 
+\textsc{Empire State Building}, and I have the attitude toward this mental picture 
 that it is a perception rather than a mental picture. Let us bring out a 
 distinction we are making here. Suppose I see a table. I have a so-called 
 perception of a table, a visual table-experience. On the other hand, I may 
@@ -103,10 +102,10 @@ whether language itself exists. But we see immediately, much more
 immediately than in the case of "nonexperience," that this question is 
 caught in a trap of its own making. The question ought to be substantive. (Is 
 there a systematic relation between marks and objects, between marks and 
-nonexperiences? Is there an expression, "Empire State Building," which is 
-related to an object outside one's experience, the Empire State Building, and 
-which therefore has the same meaning whether one is looking at the Empire 
-State Building or not? ) However, it is quite obvious that if one can even ask 
+nonexperiences? Is there an expression, "\textsc{Empire State Building,}" which is 
+related to an object outside one's experience, the \textsc{Empire State Building}, and 
+which therefore has the same meaning whether one is looking at the \textsc{Empire 
+State Building} or not?) However, it is quite obvious that if one can even ask 
 whether there is language, then the answer must be affirmative. Further, the 
 distinction of language levels which is made in formal languages will not help 
 here. Before you can construct formal languages, you have to know the