In a message dated 9/4/2015 3:11:12 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Might I then rush to be first to found, and tempt even weaker minds with,
the School of Logical Corpuscularianism?"
Yes, you might.
You might be the first (or not) to be reminded that I'm the first to doubt
-ianism is perhaps the wrong ending. We were discussing "McEvoyian" versus
"McEvoyist" and "McEvoyesque" (among various endings -- I prefer
"McEvoyesque" since it has a French ring to it).
But in the case of 'corpuscule', I would think Boyle was as much a
'corpuscularist' as he was a 'corpuscularian' (if not 'corpuscularesque').
We should need to ask Boyle.
McEvoy:
"Admittedly, like "nomological dangler" and unlike "Logical Atomism" or
"Logical Positivism", it perhaps doesn't have that ring to it."
Well, as Madonna says, a ring is where you find it.
Her credo is that if x doesn't have THAT *precise* ring to it (i.e. x), you
(i.e. Madonna) may still find a ring in x -- She abbreviates it as "a ring
is where you find it".
Incidentally, in casual conversation, I NEVER ('on principle') use
"nomological dangler", but "nomological dangler (c) Herbert Feigl", or
"nomological dangler" (c) Feigl", out of respect, you know.
While "nomological dangler' was used by the anglo-phone philosopher J.J.C.
Smart in his essay, and smartly too, "Sensations and Brain Processes", he
rushes to credit the term to
the émigré Herbert Feigl (born in Reichenberg (Liberec), Bohemia, he
emigrated to Iowa) and his essay The "Mental" and the "Physical".
McEvoy:
"Might explain why it's not a well-known School."
Might it boil down to the fact that Boyle's writings are obscure and Locke
systematically misreads him?
"Anyway, we have the copyright. Might I further propose that the central
and abiding problem for our new School is determining how far 'logical
corpuscules' can be further divided, and in what ways? This will be discussed
ad
nauseum in our house journal, "The Corpusclar Review" (incorporating
"Logical Entities Monthly" and "Divisibility Weekly")."
Well, for one, we need to rewrite R. M. Hare's brilliant "Sub-atomic parti
cles" of logic ("Mind") for surely Hare was corpuscularesque in spirit (K.
Allan says that Hare multiplies sub-atomic particles or corpuscules beyond
necessity): he (Hare) distinguishes between:
-- the propositional content ('the door is closed') which he had called the
dictum in his Oxonian dissertation, but later used 'phrastic' ('what is
said').
-- the force, or neustic. This is the first part of the complex Fregean
corpuscule "⊢".
-- the mode corpuscule, as the second part of the complex Fregean
'corpuscule', '"⊢" to signify the indicative mode ("the door is closed."). This
Hare calls the tropic.
-- the clistic. This corpuscule he represents by the 'dot', and it shows
that the utterer has nothing else to say: "The door is closed. My mother was
born in Strasbourg." The dot indicates that one thought is terminated while
another has commenced."
If Palma was referring to Frege's problem with the saturation of functions,
Omar K. was mentioning the literal use of 'nuclear' (pronounced /nukliar/)
in the inventor of Logical Atomism's later writings. So we may need a
correlate of that in Logical Corpuscularianism
Omar:
"Russell also had a couple of things to say about nuclear weapons later on
but he made it clear that atomic propositions had nothing to do with that."
"The nucleus is a corpuscule" would be analytic for Boyle.
He was "possibly" (Geary qualifies) a genius, Boyle was.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
