[lit-ideas] Re: The Educational Value of Slips of the Whatever
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:47:41 -0230
Get your ducks in a row soon, Geary. One less person for me to kick around is
one more chink in my sense of self-esteem. Looking forward to vengeance with a
vengeance.
Knowing everything, inferring nothing, telling very little,
Walter O.
Quoting Mike Geary <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi guys and gals and gays,
>
> I've never understood a single world Richard Hinninge has written, nor palma,
> nor Walter O. and very few of Donal's or RP's or JL's, I'm sometimes jealous
> that I don't know what the hell you guys are talking about, but not usually.
> I'm comfortable in my ignorance so long as I feel good about myself. The
> concerns that I concern myself with usually concern my emotional life, not my
> philosophical angst. So get a life, fellas. Thankfully, this list hasn't
> what you guys want it to be -- an athenaeum dedicated to lectures in the
> various branches of Philosophy, Rhetoric, Grammar and Jurisbullshitery --
> instead, it's like Oprah. : ) Even so, I must leave you for a period.
> Yes, yes, Walter won't have me to kick around anymore. At least not for
> awhile. But I'll be back and, no doubt with a vengeance. Things have gotten
> godawful disarrayed here and will take a bit of time to straighten out, else
> I'd never let you I-know-everything kind of people live in peace.
>
> Peace,
> Mike Geary
>
>
>
>
>
> .
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Henninge" <RichardHenninge@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 7:26 PM
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Educational Value of Slips of the Whatever
>
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Donal McEvoy" <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:23 PM
> > Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: The Educational Value of Slips of the Whatever
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 29/9/09, Richard Henninge wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I pray, and I think we should all so pray that Donal is
> >> indeed "mistaken" that "any assertion, including those as to
> >> the validity of deductive inferences, is possibly or
> >> potentially mistaken." This is an extremely radical
> >> position, fit, metaphorically speaking, to put quicksand
> >> under the basis of all our mutual understanding, unless
> >> Donal is saying, in effect, "not to worry--even if a given
> >> assertion as to the validity of deductive inferences is
> >> mistaken, that would not preclude the validity of deductive
> >> inferences so asserted."
> >
> > Comments:
> >
> > 1. The last statement does not follow from the premiss I used: from the
> fact
> > that the validity of a (putative) deductive inference "is possibly or
> > potentially mistaken" (my premiss) we cannot leap to the conclusion that it
>
> > "is mistaken" (Richard's conclusion).
> >
> > ...
> >
> > Two comments:
> >
> > 1a. It can no longer be glancingly admonished as a "slip of the whatever"
> > when an interlocutor misstates his own premisses, including the
> > unacknowledged singularizing of his originally sweeping generalization
> > ("any assertion, including those as to the validity of _deductive
> > inferences_, ... ) and the unacknowledged replacing of his original "any
> > assertion ... as to the validity of" by the completely different "fact of
> > the validity of ... " what has now become his singular and parenthetically
>
> > qualified "(putative) deductive inference."
> >
> > 2a. Furthermore, the conclusion I supposedly leap to is just the opposite
> of
> > what Donal credits me with claiming. I do not say that "Donal says, in
> > effect" that the _assertion_ of the validity or invalidity of deductive
> > inferences makes them so, makes them valid or invalid, but that such
> > assertion leaves them cold, so to speak, and hence does not "preclude"
> their
> > validity or invalidity. I in no way say either that, because (as Popper
> > says) the assertion of the validity of deductive inferences or (as Donal is
>
> > now saying) the actual validity of those deductive inferences "is possibly
>
> > or potentially mistaken," _either_ that the assertion of their validity
> _or_
> > that their actual validity "is mistaken." What I disagree with is the use
> of
> > the word "validity" as, in some way, scalar. If this so-called validity is
>
> > historically conditioned or if it can be impinged upon by such
> > life-and-death scenarios as those proposed by Donal, or if this validity
> > _can be_ mistaken, it seems to me it must be of an entirely different
> > category than logical statements of the sort, "if P & Q, then Q." It's the
>
> > putting in question of the validity of _that_ (remember, "... any assertion
>
> > ...") that makes me wonder what intelligent discussion is going to look
> like
> > without some such necessary logical infrastructure.
> >
> > Richard Henninge
> > University of Mainz
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
