[lit-ideas] Is Popper Mortal?


 












 R. Paul:

--




the original version there was a universal 
quantifier, 'For all x, if x is a man, and so on and so on…










Popper could  not distinguish between substitutional account of universal 
quantification and his nose. 



Man is not a scientific terminology (Consider the name of NY Governor's former 
mistress, You-Man). Darwin tried to elucidate this by talking of 'homo sapiens' 
instead.



It's no use dwelling on Aristotle. "zoon" cannot translate into English, 
because he thought _plants_ (like mustard, etc) were "zoa", i.e. living beings 
and thus 'mortal' -- corruptible was his favourite word. "De generatione et 
corruptione". 



Rocks on the other hand, don't necessarily corrupt. 



Socrates is involved here, since he corrupted the youth. He would never have 
condemned had he corrupted a chemical substance (e.g. gold). Or maybe yes. 
Solon was pretty strict, they say.



So, science can choose 'homo sapiens' as 'theoretical object' and discuss it. 
'mortal' means 'corruptible' which is a dispositional term. So we should 
replace it by something more physical, e.g. 'kicked the bucket', or 'is 
currently buried or has been cremated'.



I'm never sure. Consider "Elvis Presley" -- is he mortal? Axe Geary. On the 
other hand, Popper _was_ possibly _mortal_. Grice, too died, of 'non-natural 
causes', and I'm not feeling too well this spring. (As Voltaire woud say in 
French).



Cheers,



JL










Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.

Other related posts: