[lit-ideas] Re: America's Greatest Word

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:51:24 EST

In a message dated 1/31/2011 4:09:09 P.M., rpaul@xxxxxxxx  writes:
Frege said that a concept without sharp boundaries is no concept at  all. 


It might be argued that 'OK' is _not_ a concept. I  would endorse a Harean 
approach to "OK" (alla Grice quoting from Hare in  "Prolegomena to Logic and 
Conversation" -- "x is good" = 'I approve of  x').
"I approve of x" does not _mean_ 'x is good'. Only 'implicates' it, rather  
in reverse. I.e. An utterer, by uttering,
'x is good'
implicates that he approves of x. Surely Michael Jackson, when  uttering
'I'm bad'
implicates AND ENTAILS he is bad.
'x is ok' -- Utterer approves of x.
This need not involve a concept, alla 'horse' (Geach on Frege on 'horse'  
not being a concept of horse, _Mind_).
We need to formalise 'approve'. I propose '+'.
reads as A (or U, for utterer) approves (+) of x.
Similarly, 'not OK' is 'disapprove'.
A pro-attitude is Griceian in nature but with Stevensonian ancestry. This  
amounts to an 'emotivist' approach to "OK", America's greatest word.
The alternative view, to consider that "OK" stands for a 'concept', like  
'liberty', seems otiose.
Incidentally, some say that "Liberty" is the Greatest American word. 
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: