On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, Phil Enns wrote: > > 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. > snip > > I am objecting to the idea that there is a concept that is named by the word > 'pawn' and gives that name its meaning. W: I'm bringing these two claims together because they're clearly related and also very interesting. Let me shift to a game we all know something about: the game of giving reasons. I think giving reasons is best thought of as a practice (governed by criteria as Robert correctly corrected me on) - but for the time being let's say it's also a concept. In teaching someone what's involved in giving reasons, we can say that we're teaching the concept of giving reasons. To have the concept, to be able to engage in the practice, is to be able to do a variety of different things. Eg: one knows that "Because I couldn't possibly be able to live in such a conspiratorial world" is not a reason for believing that there was not a multinational conspiracy to kill JFK.. The fact that there are people and cultures who don't differentiate between, say, providing somebody with a motive to believe or act, and giving or offering them reasons to believe or act is empirically interesting (perhaps) but is not relevant to an identification of the presuppositions of (cogent, coherent) reason giving. The latter we can say is part of the concept of giving reasons. We need some name or another for it, as Phil has repeatedly said. On this we agree. Where we seem to disagree is on the relevance of empirical "variations" to the practice of giving reasons to the concept or practice of giving reasons itself. I don't see any necessary relation there. Nor does Eric given what his position on the character of chess has been over the past days and if my reading of the application of that position to this new matter is valid. I do believe I am starting another kerfuffle (sp?) and am willing to be shamed again. Walter Okshevsky Reasons For All Occasions Ltd. ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html