"Can a sweater be red and green all over? No stripes allowed."
*Well, not from an individual perspective it cannot. But it could look red
all over to one and green all over to another.
The sweater is green but I see it red ? Yep, no contradiction in saying
that. (Perhaps one should also mention that it is not a tautology, since in
JL's book it seems to follow that what is not a tautology must be a
contradiction.)
Possibly this could clean up some linguistic weed(s).
O.K.
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 10:30 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In a message dated 5/15/2015 11:37:01 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
"But I doubt it. If W does say such things, I would like the actual words
quoted. [...] I do not think we can infer any such thing from what Richard
quotes."
What I do know (rather than doubt) is that Grice did say such things, I
mean as per subject line:
"Can a sweater be red and green all over? No stripes allowed."
He thought that for his children's playmates that would be easier language
than Kant.
It seems both Witters and Grice (both analytic philosophers, unlike Gœthe)
were into the 'synthetic a priori', and oddly as it seems (vide "paradox
of analysis") it takes an analytic philosopher to detect a synthetic a
priori.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
