[lit-ideas] Re: Can, logically, there be any such thing as a "performative contradiction"?

From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 17:10:12 +0000 (GMT)


--- On Sat, 30/5/09, palma <palma@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: palma <palma@xxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Can, logically, there be any such thing as a 
> "performative contradiction"?
> To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Saturday, 30 May, 2009, 5:23 PM
> yes, the best cases are
> Moore-paradoxes

Ah. Yes. _Those_.

Might be more helpful if an example were given and suggestion of what 'concept' 
of "performative" and "contradiction" is being used (as, say, in my post). I 
mean, G.E. Moore?

> you may want to see the work by L. Horn on the matter

Then again...and bear in mind my library is not stocked with any Moore or Horn. 

For all I know this post simply sends me on a wild goose chase. And I feel like 
I've just got back from one recently.

Donal
Turning stones only on a need-to-know basis at the moment
England
 
 
> cheerio
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Sat, 30 May 2009, 
> Donal McEvoy 
> wrote:
> 
> >
> > Of course, it may depend how far or little we stretch
> the idea of a "performative" and a "contradiction".
> >
> > But taking as a central case of a performative
> utterance those statements that lawyers admit as 'original
> evidence' e.g. "I do" in marriage, "I accept" in contract.
> Such out-of-court statements are not hearsay of accepting
> the marriage or other contract but are constitutive of that
> acceptance - hence they are "performative" utterances. In
> this sense of "performative", how could such an utterance
> ever be a "contradiction" (or at odds with itself), where
> this would seem to imply that it at once constituted and did
> not constitute the relevant act of acceptance?
> >
> > The utterance "I do because father-in-law-to-be has a
> shotgun at my back" , or "I accept because otherwise Luca
> Brasi will ensure it is my brains on the contract", do not
> constitute genuine acceptance and so do not, in any strict
> sense, amount to a performative contradiction - rather they
> are imperfect or counterfeit or surrogate, or whatever,
> performatives.
> > They fall short of being genuine performatives and so
> cannot amount to a "performative contradiction".
> >
> > Donal
> > Too much time on my (F.A.Cup watching, if you must)
> hands
> > Aware W.O. was perhaps being humourously playful in
> his previous use of "performative contradiction" and/or
> deploying a widened concept of "performative" and
> "contradiction"; and hoping he took only an acceptable level
> of offence at my previous animadversions
> > Final whistle - o, god..
> > Next on this weary day - Britain's Got Talent
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub,
> vacation on/off,
> > digest on/off), visit
> www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> >
> 
> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> ?e ?’, ?????e?? ?a?eda?µ?????? ? ? ? ?t? t?de
> ?e?µe?a, t??? ?e???? ??µas? pe???µe???.
> /begin/read__>sig.file: postal address
> palma
> University of KwaZulu-Natal Philosophy
> 3rd floor of Memorial Tower Building
> Howard College Campus
> Durban 4041
> South Africa
> Tel off: [+27] 031 2601591 (sec: Mrs. Yolanda Hordyk) [+27]
> 031-2602292
> Fax [+27] 031-2603031
> mobile 07 62 36 23 91         
>   calling from overseas +[27] 76 2362391
> EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxx
> EMAIL: palma@xxxxxxxxxx
> 
> MY OFFICE IS A290@Mtb
> 
> *only when in Europe*: inst. J. Nicod
> 29 rue d'Ulm
> f-75005 paris france
> email me for details if needed at palma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ________
> This e-mail message (and attachments) is confidential,
> and/or privileged and is intended for the
> use of the addressee only. If you are not the intended
> recipient of this e-mail you must not copy,
> distribute, take any action in reliance on it or disclose
> it to anyone. Any confidentiality or
> privilege is not waived or lost by reason of mistaken
> delivery to you.
> This entity is not responsible for any information not
> related to the business of this entity. If you
> received this e-mail in error please destroy the original
> and notify the sender.
> 



------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Re: Can, logically, there be any such thing as a "performative contradiction"?

Other related posts:
