[lit-ideas] Re: Can a sweater be red and green all over? No stripes allowed.

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 17 May 2015 08:18:23 +0000 (UTC)

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.">
The "such things" in my post concerned whether "rules", as to what is "jarring"
and "non-jarring", are "dogmatic" or "arbitrary". These "such things" are a
world away from the "such things" of a 'synthetic a priori' that JLS then
posits above.

Yet a casual reader might think that when JLS writes "Grice did say such
things", JLS means the same kind of "such things" as the ones meant when I
doubted whether "W does say such things". The casual reader might be fooled by
JLS' casuistic writing, for they are no more the same as "such things" as they
are the same as the Ten Commandments.
So a Christian might equally add to JLS' post by saying "What I do know (rather
than doubt) is that God did say such things - I mean as per the Ten
Commandments". And anyone might add anything (as "such things") given the
unscrupulous way JLS here takes the expression "such things" and then veers off
in a Gricean direction.
DnlLdn






On Friday, 15 May 2015, 22:03, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"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




Other related posts: