[lit-ideas] Re: Cardinals and the Legacy of H. P. Grice
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:29:34 EDT
In a message dated 6/14/2009 3:55:56 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
re: "My ball itches"
>Caution leads me to say that it may or may not. The underlying
>assumption apparently is that [a person's] genitals fall within
>some statistical norm—i.e., most [...] human males have two [testicles],
so that
>a reference to one [testicle] does not entail that it has no twin,
>or cousin, as the case may be.
Right. The problem here may be the iota operator, 'the'.
(1) The ball itches.
(2) The balls itch.
'the', while philosophers claim is 'unique' -- i.e. entails 'uniqueness', I
cannot see in the case of testicles.
R. Paul brings in a good example:
>[...] van Gogh had said, post-operatively
>
> [(3)] My ear itches.
>
>the person who
>believed that there was a further question, viz., 'which ear?' would
>have been mistaken.
Oddly, I was told that people who have lost arms (in the war, say), still
_think_ or act, reflexively, as if they had one. So perhaps the question,
(4) The right, right?
--- would not be otiose.
In terms of the Causal Theory of Perception, put forward by Grice, it is a
nonsequitur
(5) Van Gogh believes his left ear itches, but he only has his right ear
left.
So one has to be careful. Qualia philosophers may disagree with Grice.
R. Paul continues in a more general vein:
>It is only where some series of events has a
>cardinality such that
>
> e + n
>
>has a greater cardinality than e, and
>
> e + n + m
>
>has a greater cardinality than e+n, that we can say that if some member
>of the series now has the cardinality n+n+m, that it must have have (at
>an earlier time, or at an earlier point in the series) the cardinality
>n, and we can say e.g., that if
>
>
(6) Henry VIII had six wives.
>he must at
>some point have had two, unless he somehow married all six in a single
>ceremony.
Exactly. I am told that can happen in Muslim countries.
R. Paul:
>Now to the point [...] : 'had' does not mean 'is.'
Oddly, Grice writes that 'hazz' (his invention) sometimes stands for 'izz':
Socrates hazz pale.
Is the best representation, he thinks, for "Socrates is pale'.
>There is no
>implication from
>
(7) 'J[oan Rivers] is 72.
>to
(8) J[oan Rivers] IS 20.'
>Someone who said 'J[oan Rivers]
>is 20' (where J[oan Rivers] is 72)
>would be saying something false.
And for weight?
Queen Latifah weighs 200 pounds.
Queen Latifah weighs 120 pounds.
Is the logic to do with _each_ verb in the sentence, or are there general
rules?
----
R. Paul:
>One could
>wish that 'Aristotle is 40,' were true, but alas it is not.
Well, what one would be wishing, de dicto, would be that "Aristotle is no
older than 40 years old" in my rewrite.
Oddly, "The Strange Case of Benjamin Button" destroys Wittgenstein's logic
of number.
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
Buenos Aires, Argentina
**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
