[lit-ideas] Re: Must the Word be Literate?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 09:49:27 +0100 (BST)
--- John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > How could this be tested "empirically"? In thinking "about language in
> the
> > absence of writing" we are concerned about pre-literate societies - what
> > records will they have left us, and insofar as we find such societies
> extant
> > how could we test your question?
>
> Many preliterate societies have now been studied by anthropologists.
> One or more could report..... >
What follows does not spell out how it is to be tested but only speculates as
to how it _might_ be. I don't deny it _might_ be [I don't deny I _might_ be
the only thing that exists, apart from my playmate God] but how can it be
tested specifically?
> Re the analytic/synthetic thing: If, like Leibniz (or Calvin before
> him), you assume predestination in the best of all possible worlds,
> then everything that is or will be follows logically from God's
> premises. Everything true about the world is, thus, analytically true.
Here I am at loss: why should all of "God's premises" be analytic and none
'synthetic'? [After all, a true 'synthetic' premise is at least as true, and
doubtless more informative, than a true 'analytic' premise].
Donal
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it
now.
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
