[lit-ideas] Re: America's Greatest Word
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:14:49 EST
In a message dated 1/31/2011 5:03:57 P.M., donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx
writes:
This independence from 'precision' is why it is not precisely correct to
suggest I had Tarski in mind.
I was referring to McEvoy, when he wrote:
"the concept of 'ok' is arguably not a very precise one
... usually conveying a meaning that achieves only ok levels of precision"
This appeal to the meta-language in the object-language _IS_ Tarskian to
the backbone. Davidson's disquotational view (of truth, or "OK") is a chip
from the old block:
"OK" is ok
"Snow is white" is OK iff snow is white.
----
"OK" is a concept in the object-language. If we say ""OK" is OK" we are
using, in the predicate, "OK" metalinguistically.
To say that "OK" "conveys a meaning that achieves only OK levels of
precision" involves a liar-type paradox:
(OK) OK is OK
cfr.
(S) S is true
Etc.
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
