Surely virginity is a state, not a disposition. (Though not a state of mind, either.) The tendency to engage in behaviors and make decisions that promote virginity, on the other hand, would legitimately be classed as a disposition. Walter O Gilbert Ryle Professor of Speculative Metaphysics University of Oxford Oxford, Ohio Quoting Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx: > > > In a message dated 4/29/2010 5:02:24 A.M., donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx > writes: > the upshot of prior dispositional states [or propensities or > potentialities] is a metaphysical view, not based on "implicature" nor > dependent on it. > > ---- You still have not replied to my other example: > > "She is a virgin. I deflowered her." > > If virginity is a disposition, then surely, by implicature theory, a past > ascription of a future disposition would make sense, but it doesn't. So > perhaps it's entailment, rather than implicature. > > Donal continues: > > ""The cd is breakable. I broke it." is not prohibited - for it may remain > breakable as I snap the broken pieces a second time. [That is, only if the > act of breaking something once means it is no longer further breakable, > ought we reflect this by using the past tense: "It was breakable (but no > longer > any further is breakable) and I broke it."" > > --- Again, this does not really apply to '-- is a virgin'. In most human > cases, some people say it's always possible to repeat the act. > > Donal concludes the paragraph: > > "But this is only a convention of language that in itself may be a poor > guide to correct metaphysics]. As said in my post, the real clout of this > metaphysics lies in its being able to be fleshed out with _specifics_ as to > > prior dispositions: a white couple who have a black child who matches their > DNA, can be assured by science that it is their child and that the result is > > because there are 'black-skin genes' within the DNA of one of them. Who > would have accepted that 200 years ago? Yet "implicature", with its paltrey > > explanatory power by comparison, would then have been easily accepted by > many." > > > ---- I cannot see how implicature has to do with this. Obviously if the > parents SEE their black child, there is nothing an implicature can 'defeat'. > > Implicature arises in 'subtle' uses of language, as Grice has it: not in the > > 'gross' facts of life. > > J. L. Speranza > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > 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