[lit-ideas] Re: Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 17:43:13 -0400 (EDT)

One problem here, that McEvoy may address (or not) is the symbolisation in  
first-order logic.
 
Suppose we consider "x" and "y" to range over individuals.
 
Then we need a property, "A", and another property "B", etc.
 
Then we need to introduce quantifiers -- so that "every", in "every" one,  
gets properly represented.
 
THEN:

I would think that the dictum becomes _interesting_. 
 
For it 'trades', as it were, on different 'uses' (never 'meanings') of  
"unique".
 
In the vernacular:
 
If EVERYONE else is unique, then x's being unique is not a property that  
applies UNIQUELY to x. And so on.
 
I think Bertrand Russell considers this in his account of uniqueness when  
it comes to the definite descriptor -- "the".
 
This section, from
 
Ludlow, Peter, "Descriptions", The Stanford Encyclopedia of  Philosophy  
(Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = 
<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/descriptions/>. 
 
may help -- or not. Of course.

"The residue of the problem of uniqueness
In section 3.3 we  considered cases like (11), which did not seem to yield 
in a natural way to the  device of quantifier domain restriction.
(11) Put the book on the book
But  as Szabo (2000) and Ludlow and Segal (2003) have argued, if we combine 
 quantifier domain restriction with the unified analysis of descriptions, 
the  problem seems more amenable to solution. The idea is the following: What 
one  literally expresses in (11) is that the hearer should put a book on a 
book.  Pragmatics helps us to make out that one book in particular is being 
spoken of,  which book that is, and where it is to be moved.
This solution is also argued  to work in cases where the description is 
embedded within a conditional, as in  (12) discussed above.
(12) If a bishop meets another bishop, the bishop  blesses the other bishop
Before, we worried about which bishop got to count  as the bishop in the 
context in question, but now this worry seems to have  dissolved. An utterance 
of (12) is literally expressing the same thing as  (12′)
(12′) If a bishop meets another bishop, a bishop that meets a bishop  
blesses a bishop that is met by a bishop
As long as we restrict the domain of  quantification in this case to 
include just the two bishops in question, this  will yield the truth conditions 
that we are looking for."
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza
 
----

In a message dated 6/24/2013 4:25:09 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
pastone@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Interesting, on Sept 12, 2011, on my facebook  page, I posted the following 
exchange between my (then 4) son and me.   
Me: Don't worry Matty, everything will be fine at school and soon everyone  
will realize that you are unique, just like all of the other  children.
Matthew: Okay, dad. Um.... Dad, what does "unique" mean?
Me: It  means, "one-of-a-kind".
Matthew: Oh, yes, of course... silly me! [repeating  'unique?' under his 
breath as he walks to the bus stop]
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013  at 2:44 PM, Torgeir Fjeld <torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
Always  remember you're unique, just like everyone else.
Cheers,
Speranza
Yeah,  everybody's differnt. Or to puts otherwise: No one same. Really.
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Follow-Ups:
- [lit-ideas] Re: Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else
  - From: Donal McEvoy

[lit-ideas] Re: Always remember you're unique, just like everyone else

Other related posts: