[Wittrs] On the Family Resemblance of Tautology;
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 Feb 2010 20:43:39 -0800 (PST)
Hi J.
First, I want to thank you for that account of "tautology." I thought it was
quite good. I'm not all that convinced that all the issue are gone, however.
Here's my difficulty. I'm sure you agree that "tautology" has sense. The basic
idea in rhetoric seems to be redundancy ("unsolved mystery"). In math, it
appears to be the idea of redundancy on both sides of the equals sign. (a=a). I
assume this also means 2+2 = 4+1 is tautological? And in logic, it is simply
the idea of circularity in premise and conclusion. But here's the problem:
1. People do extend the idea to definitions.
http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Tautology "Some people consider
definitions to be tautologies. For example, 'bachelor' is defined as 'unmarried
male.' 'Bachelor' and 'unmarred male' mean the same thing, so, according at
least to this understanding of definitions, defining 'bachelor' as 'unmarried
male' does not give us any new information; it merely links together two terms
that are identical."
2. I'm not sure the idea of an "analytic truth" is superior to the term
tautology or tautologous if writing for a multidisciplinary audience. (I'm
writing a manuscript right now, so I bring it up). Here's why. First, tautology
has a wider application (wider audience). Second, the basic idea of tautology
-- repetition, circularity -- is present in the definition. Note the structure:
bachelor = 1. adult 2 male. 3 unmarried.
There is nothing in the term that isn't in the definition (in this school-boy
sense of the word). So the principle of tautology (or its basic idea) is being
used on definitions in the same way it was applied to the logical structure of
propositions or used for an equation (or what not). In fact, one might say that
the definition above is, in fact, appealing to some sort of logical structure
(bachelor = property a b c), from which it finds requisite circularity. Also, I
don't think it is a critical part of the family resemblance of "tautology"
that circularity in assertion come in the form of sentences or props. That
seems to be a sharp boundary that you are observing. (Cf. Marriage is between a
husband and wife). My point is that it doesn't seem to stop the use of the
ideas.
When I was in school way back in the 80s, right after the dinosaurs left, I
recall quite distinctly hearing tautology in logic and in 'loser contexts." I
recall specifically people talking about "bachelor" as both a tautology and an
analytic concept. I think I recall professors remarking that Wittgenstein had a
peculiar sense of "tautology" as well, but my point here is only to say that
other speaking conventions regarding the word seem present.
Lastly, I want to make one thing very clear. The only reason why I used the
word "tautology" in prior mails was that I couldn't find the right word for
what I meant (and analytic isn't really doing it either). Here's the idea again:
There are some words where their cognition is brain dead. Some words don't
actually say anything other than "calculate the definition." Let's call them
for right now predicate-calculators. (I'm using predicate instead of
definition). The Pope is a "bachelor" only in the sense of a
predicate-calculator. A person who has an arterial PH below 7.35 has acidosis
only in the sense of a predicate-calculator.
However, if one means to say that the person having PH below 7.35 has REQUISITE
ACIDITY -- as in, too much acidity in the blood, a value judgment -- as
reflected by the measure in service of this idea, the matter is NOT-CIRCULAR
(not-tautologous). That is, the person has acidosis NOT AS A
PREDICATE-CALCULATOR. Do you see the difference? For the Pope to be a TRUE
BACHELOR, we need to see that he is in the service of the same idea that the
predicate-calculator is serving. In short, he must be "bacheloristic" in
the service of an "adult, unmarried male." Since "adult, unmarried male" does
not service his "bacheloristicness," we cannot really apply the
predicate-calculator with any meaning here.
Did you catch that? If the predicate-calculator isn't in service of the basic
idea -- if the predicate-calculator is all alone, so to speak -- there really
is no term there at all. Imagine calling the Pope an unmarried male but NOT
calling him a "bachelor." If "bachelor" is a predicate-calculator, that is all
that is actually said (when you think about it). For predicate-calculators, the
word vanishes.
There are many medical words, I think, that work like this.
Regards.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
analytic truth. Analytic truths have been variously glossed as sentences in
which the predicate is contained in the subject (where the container model is
suspect) or as true in virtue of the meaning of the constituent terms (which
suggests the meaning-body picture criticized by Wittgenstein. Note: he does
not speak of analytic truths and it is not a mere stylistic quirk that he
favors expressions like "grammatical remarks".)
(Incidentaly, it would be odd - perhaps even blasphemous - to call the Pope a
bachelor. But perhaps he is married to The Church. Or to God. And should we
say that in prehistoric times, before the institution of marriage, all men were
bachelors? That would at least be rather peculiar, which is not to say
incorrect.)
In any event, the point is that standard accounts of both tautologies and
analytic truths refer to sentences, propositions, or statements, not to
individual words.
We might say that "bachelor" is an example of a word that can be given an
analytic definition (an idea related to that of analytic truths but not
strictly committed to it) but whether a word can be given an analytic
definition is an open question for people who engage in such activities. It is
a subject of some debate. Whereas the point that if an analytic definition is
valid, then certain sentences will be analytic truths, is not disputed.
(Assuming one grants even the idea of "analytic truths".)
(I know of no counter-example to various definitions of "bachelor" that would
refute the sentence, "If John is a bachelor, then John is not married." That
is: I know of no counter-example to suggest that being married wouldn't
preclude being a bachelor. But various counter-examples do challenge whether
even satisfying all of the putative conditions would always qualify one for
bachelorhood.)
I can say, recalling various things I've read, looking through references
available to me at the moment, and searching online, I cannot find the claim
that the word "bachelor" is a tautology. The definition of bachelor is a
classic example of an analytic truth and might be loosely called a tautology,
but there is quite a difference between a word and a definition. (A definition
might consist of a single word, i.e. a synonym of the word to be defined, but
then you still have two words: the word defined and its synonym. Along with
some form of copula, perhaps a typographical convention like a colon.)
Sentences, propositions, or statements are true or false. Individual words are
typically not, though they may be correctly or incorrectly applied. (But
compare: Wittgenstein's remark on exclamations and ellipses PI 19 and 20.)
I'll try to comment on the remarks about "bearer-calls" and
"bearer-assignments" later this weekend.
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
