[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 
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
(S) S is true
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: