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

From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 07:55:50 +0100 (BST)



________________________________
 From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>

 

>One problem here, that McEvoy may address (or not) is the symbolisation in  
first-order logic.>

Here it is tempting to stick to "(or not)": but is there really much of a 
problem? 

We each have a unique DNA marker, and so everyone has a unique DNA marker, and 
we are each just like everyone else in this respect. And we may want to 
remember (say when committing crimes where DNA traces could identify us) that 
our DNA is unique, just as is everyone else's. There is no logical or other 
paradox ,or other problem of significance, in this (afaicansee).

What might be paradoxical or problematic would be to say that we each are 
unique in every different aspect of ourselves: for that might imply that the 
aspect of our 'uniqueness' is both unique and yet shared, for everyone else is 
unique. Yet if it is shared it is not unique.

But when we make a claim as to something being unique we do not normally imply 
that it is unique in every aspect, only that it is unique in certain aspects - 
and that latter claim gives rise to no logical paradox or problem.

If you want to read Popper's sustained treatement of this issue you are out of 
luck perhaps because it is fairly uninteresting trivial stuff that goes nowhere 
interesting. But I am eager to be surprised on this as always (or not).

D





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

Other related posts:
