[lit-ideas] Re: Grice's Shaggy Dog Story
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:03:15 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
>I am expanding on McEvoy's claim that it's _sense_ that cannot be said for
Witters, but only _shown_. I concentrate on the meaning of 'shaggy'.
"What is "shaggy""? "Hairy-coated".
So, the _sense_ of "shaggy" is 'hairy-coated'.
This enough should be a refutation for McEvoy and Witters.>
Of course, it isn't enough. It is quite hopeless a "refutation". It may well be
that "the _sense_ of "shaggy" is 'hairy-coated'". But that does not mean the
words quoted say the(ir) sense.
So this example does not work as an example of "a statement that states its own
sense", "signs that sign their own sense", "a 'what-is-said' that says its own
sense" etc.
The claim that somehow in saying "shaggy" we have said that "shaggy" has the
sense of "hairy-coated" is nowhere sustained in JLS' post.
Even if we (rightly) say that, "The _sense_ of "shaggy" is 'hairy-coated'", we
have not thereby said the sense of 'what we have said' by saying this: the
sense of 'what we have said' depends on more than 'what we have said'. If W
were Irish he might have amplified this thus - "a feck of a lot more".
But this has been explained like a zillion-trillion times.
W's view was 'shown' in lengthyish posts on why, for example, stating the
numbers '0, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.', or stating the instruction 'From n continually
add 2', are not statements that state their own sense. [Perhaps JLS' rush-job
"refutation" might have been slowed by properly considering these posts, which
sought to explain what W seeks to show in PI by discussing teaching such a
series or formula to another who did not understand their sense as we do].
Nor, for W, can their sense otherwise be stated: because any attempt to state
their sense fails unless that attempt states its own sense, and this it cannot
do.
(I admit: that last point has only be explained like a billion-million times.)
Donal
Salop
Other related posts:
