[lit-ideas] act 4 scene 1
- From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 18:16:08 +0200
** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 6/16/2012 (Saturday) **
this is peripheral, but since the quality ain't there, we give it yet
another try.
p is a proposition, there is nothing to prove there. Claims about
existence are best left at those who are impressed and have to impress
the vicar on deep issues such as "how do you prove the virgin exists"
and their ilk.
to prove that propositions exist is very easy (a translation is enough,
if one does not want to use fancy methods in linguistics, since what is
preserved by translation is an x, call x the proposition. for
sophisticated thinker one may even resort to jerry Fodor LOT and note
that any sentence is a translation from LOT to natural language of
choice.)
hence there is no analogy between asking whether "p exists" if p is a
proposition, or if p is an object (one may well ask whether language
exists, Chomsky's answer is no, Dummett is yes, to quote two recent
thinkers involved in the dispute, in that case language is an object.
likewise one may ask whether the witch of my apartment exists or not,
und so weiter)
the rest is to be sure, far more controversial, and indeed Locke is
confused, as shown by Monsieur Leibniz in Nouveaux essais sur
l'entendement humain -- note: occasionally it helps to study..)
what is indeed amusing is that the same idiocies crop up with
undergraduates and people who dislike or do not do philosophy.
for whatever my opinion were to count, my provisional answer is
contained in the essay, the wages of sin, in intellectica 1995, it is
even available on line, since I want to be nice
you can read at
http://intellectica.org/SiteArchives/archives/n21/n21_table.htm
that my answer is classical, and its summary is Plato, The Sophist, 248
c-d
as t the last final question of donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx, my answer is
negative
best regards
Portia:
You stand within his danger, do you not?
Antonio:
Ay, so he says.
Portia:
Do you confess the bond?
Antonio:
I do.
Portia:
Then must the Jew be merciful.
Shylock:
On what compulsion must I? tell me that.
Portia:
The quality of mercy is not strain'd,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
The Merchant Of Venice Act 4, scene 1, 180–187 (
http://www.enotes.com/merchant-text/act-iv-scene-i?start=2#mer-4-1-181
)
>>> Donal McEvoy donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> 26/06/2012 05:40 PM >> (
mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx )
From: adriano paolo shaul gershom palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
>Locke is of course very confused with all english philosophers up to
and not including the two adams (Hume and Smith) who were scottish, not
by coincidence....>
Yet, perhaps confusingly, Locke never confused himself with all English
philosophers up to and not including the two Adams. Even his friends and
family never confused him with these others, despite doubtless being
"cretins" and talking "quatsch". Indeed one of the startling points of
broad agreement in Locke scholarship, at least from the seventeeth
century onwards, is that Locke is not to be confused - and especially
not very confused - with any philosopher other than Locke. Some have
even suggested this be taken as axiomatic.
Now, if we refer to those, who actually did or do confuse Locke with
"all English philosophers etc.", as 'p', then might we ask how we do you
prove that p exists?
>moto, only cretins ask how do you prove that p
Okay, but what about asking how you prove that p exists? Is this any
different? And if only a cretin would ask, does this mean only a cretin
would answer?
Donal
International League of Pan-Cretinists (Motto: Real Cretins Don't Eat
Quatsch)
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] act 4 scene 1 - Adriano Palma
