[lit-ideas] Re: A signal or two
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 17:55:39 +0100 (BST)
There were posts headed "Beyond Signalling Lies Nothing" IIRC.
--- On Thu, 11/8/11, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> He divided it into matters of
> satisfactoriness and evidence/ground. He
> was aware that
>
> "Close the door!"
>
> "Post the letter!"
>
> "Post the letter or burn it!"
>
> can HARDLY be said to be 'true' -- yet
>
> "Post the letter or burn it!" follows from "Post the
> letter!" This was
> noticed early enough by Hare in 1967 in Mind.
Hmm. This is a point of philosophical logic on which I don't know Popper's
view: but I find it questionable. The example of an imperative proposition
['IP'] like 'Post the letter' is not necessarily the same as that of a
descriptive proposition ['DP'] such as 'Here is a letter'. In particular, the
DP 'Here is a letter' asserts the existence of something at a particular point
in time and place: when combined in the alternative with another DP, such as
'Over there is a fire', we know the resultant DP is true if either 'Here is a
letter' or 'Over there is a fire', or both. But of course this is not to say
that the resultant DP means that if 'Here is a letter' then 'Over there is a
fire', or vice versa. It follows that if it is true that "Here is a letter", or
if it is true that "Over there is a fire", the truth of one of these singular
DP is enough to make it true that "Either 'Here is a letter' or 'Over there is
a fire'".
In the case of a singular IP like "Post the letter", where this means "To act
morally, you must post the letter", nothing also further follows logically: so,
for example, it does not necessarily follow that if you do not post the letter
you will have acted morally nevertheless if you burn the letter.
Therefore, the combined IP "Post the letter or burn it", meaning you must do
one or the other in order to act morally, may be construed as equivalent to two
IPs _that are conjoined in that it is asserted that either of them will satisfy
what is morally required_.
As will be clear from this, it is not the case that "Post the letter or burn
it" follows from "Post the letter": "Post the letter" is a singular moral claim
that does not of itself imply that some other action, such as burning the
letter, may also suffice morally. In fact, as an unqualified singular IP, the
usual way of understanding "To act morally, you must or aught post the letter"
is that this IP is not allowing that there is an alternative course of action -
e.g. burning the letter - that is also moral. In any case, the combined IP has
a conjoined content that goes much further than the content of either "Post the
letter" or "Burn the letter" when these are taken individually as singular
moral claims.
It is secondary to this but may be noted that "Post the letter or burn it" may
in practice be taken to mean something other than "You must post the letter or
you must burn it": it may be meant to convey that if the person does not post
the letter, the morality of which may be left open, then morally they must burn
it.
If there was something published in Mind that refutes this, let me know. IIRC
some awful specious rubbish has been published in Mind, the contents of which
have frequently been disheartening to me (something in Mind by Jennifer Hornsby
on the philosophy of action left me so weak-willed as a student that I could
not bring myself to write my weekly essay; my tutor was thankfully
understanding), so please let the refutation not be more of this.
Donal
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
