[lit-ideas] Re: When Water Wasn't Wet
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2009 15:39:29 EDT
In a message dated 7/7/2009 3:31:08 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
pastone@xxxxxxxxx writes:
No... the logic is that 'water' is a bigger set than 'ice' since it
also exists as liquid and gas.
Similarly -- moms are women, not all women are moms
----
I see. So we should teach K. Trogge about the 'philosophical
investigation' side to this. I guess you, P. A. Stone, are with Hilary
Putnam's moderate
Kripkeanism that we should distinguish between
analytic
tautologic
necessary
contingent
possible
impossible
synthetic
a priori
a posteriori
I would say that while it is not Logically Necessary that Water = (for we
"have" to use "=") here (even if we're talking 'natural kind') is rigidly
designated by H20.
But surely we can imagine a possible world where Water =/= (non-equal) H20.
Thus, the proposition is indeed not analytic, or tautologic, but synthetic
a posteriori.
One we get the _semantics_ of 'water' clear can we explore the pragmatic
contradictions by Palma which are more like a matter of retronymy and
otiosity.
'liquid water' would be a retronym, like analog watch, or acoustic
guitar.
and as such shortened (via 'otiosity minimisation') to 'water'.
Palma writes that 'water is wet' is not tautological. I wonder if he thinks
'water is liquid' is _false_ then, or merely uninformative?
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
Buenos Aires, Argentina
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222585089x1201462806/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
