Phil Enns wrote:
Robert Paul wrote:
"One could still have the concept _pawn_ without having any name for the chess piece called in English 'pawn,' (and in other languages, something else, 'Bauer,' e.g.). I might teach someone 'this piece moves in such and such ways, etc.' without giving the piece in question any name at all."
And what do you mean by 'this piece'? You can't be referring to that particular piece because there is more than one pawn.
You can't be referring to its shape because there is no reason why a pawn has to have any particular shape. In reality, what we have is a trick of using the
word 'this' as though it were a name. (cf Wittgenstein PI § 38) One
might teach someone moves in chess without giving the piece in question
any name but one could not have rules for the playing of chess, and
therefore the game itself, without names. In particular, without names
there would be no way of identifying a mistake since any move might or
might not be a way this piece moves.
Robert Paul Reed College ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html