[lit-ideas] Re: Language, Justice and Social Practices (long)

Eric Yost wrote:

"There are variations on the game, but they have other names, like Bughouse
Chess for example."

Call them variations if you like, but they are still instances of the game
of chess.  It seems that you want to distinguish between variations and the
'true' game of chess.  I would like to know how such a distinction, if in
fact you are making this distinction, is made without reference to something
other than the game itself.


Eric again:

"Can we dispense with the terms "constituent" and "secondary" and merely
ascribe some kind of analytical value to the various concepts such as
"pawn"? Is it the claim to "deeper/higher/truer/clearer" that causes the
problem or is merely calling "pawn" a concept? I don't understand how the
meta-discussion undermines the resilience of "pawn" as a concept."

I am objecting to the idea that there is a concept that is named by the word
'pawn' and gives that name its meaning.  I am objecting to the nominalist's
claim that names label things.  This idea manifests itself differently but
often in cases where someone insists that there is a real/true way of doing
or understanding some activity.  For instance, there is your claim regarding
the real game of chess and the variations thereof.  I have no problem with
talking about the pawn as a concept, especially as it can be used
metaphorically in referring to people as pawns.


Sincerely,

Phil Enns
Toronto, ON


------------------------------------------------------------------
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: