[lit-ideas] Philosophical points
- From: Eric Dean <ecdean99@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2008 22:38:50 +0000
Donal, I believe, cited Quine as explicating "all men are mortal" with "For all
x, if x is a man then there exists a time t such that x dies at t" or something
like that (hoping I've straightened out the quantification problems Robert Paul
pointed out).
Phil Enns has taken exception to this as an explication of "all men are
mortal", and in particular has taken exception to Donal's citing a
"philosophical point" about "all men are mortal". I'm sympathetic to Phil's
(and Robert's) skepticism about a special philosophical meaning for a sentence,
but I'm not sure that Donal's point really depends on there being a special
philosophical meaning of "all men are mortal".
I think, instead, that Donal's point is about characteristics of at least one
legitimately normal meaning of the sentence. Moreover, if I understand it
right, Donal's point is that whatever the relationship of this meaning of the
sentence to its common usage, this meaning is what would be in question if one
were to make "all men are mortal" a scientific hypothesis to be tested. The
point to Quine's logical analysis of the sentence is to highlight the
impossibility of falsifying [that meaning of] the sentence, thereby making
clear (it was to be hoped, I think) why "all men are mortal" doesn't qualify as
a scientific hypothesis.
One might well wonder why it matters whether "all men are mortal" is a
legitimate scientific hypothesis, but I for one am comfortable with the
conclusion that it's not. So much for the usefulness of science in
understanding the nature of human existence.
That said, I think it's reasonable to conclude that among the normal meanings
of "all men are mortal" are meanings that at least imply that for every human
there will come a time when that human is dead. The fact that Quine or Popper
might have thought a formalized exposition of that truism makes its
unscientific nature more perspicuous might be a regretably round-about way of
making a simple point, but it doesn't seem to me the simple point's any the
less true for that...
Regards to one and all,
Eric Dean
Washington DC
Other related posts:
