[lit-ideas] Re: Does the sign say its own sense? An Austrian example

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 09:28:50 -0400 (EDT)

I wonder, and do wonder if I wonder, if D. McEvoy (he isn't) is offering  
the example below as a repartee to my post where I asked for specific  
illustrations on the use of 'sense'.
 
You see that the subject line:
 
The sign says its own sense.

becomes jargonistic in a charming way.
 
Grice was possibly confused about 'sign'. His mother tongue was not a Latin 
 tongue, and thus he refused to speak of 'sign'. He preferred 'mean'.
 
In the Graeco-Roman philosophical parlance, it's all about signs (and  
'semeia', in Greek). The Graeco-Romans, and most of Western Continental  
Philosophy, did not have a problem with signs. Even Hobbes didn't.
 
But Grice thinks that, say, Hobbes's distinction between
 
"natural signs" and "conventional signs" 
 
is confusing. He prefers to stick with the Anglophone expression, 'to  
mean'.
 
----
 
In the theory of Aristotle, a 'word' is a sign of an idea, and an idea is a 
 sign of a thing.
Indirectly, a word (or any other 'sign') is a sign of a thing.
 
----
 
Locke's 'ideational' theory is not different.

Witters criticised this as the Augustinian view of language. He  proposed 
to deal altogether WITHOUT signs.

Witters and Grice compare in that neither had a Latin-oriented tongue  as 
their mother tongue. German has to deal with 'tokens' rather than 'signs' --  
and I doubt Witters organised the German lexicon in terms of its ways to  
classify signs.
 
Enter 'sense'.
 
Enter 'say'.
 
Enter McEvoy's claim:
 
A sign says its own sense.
 
Introducing Austria, while charming (Witters was 'the Austrian engineer',  
in Russell's sobriquet) can only mislead?
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza
 
----

In a message dated 4/19/2012 7:32:48 A.M. UTC-02,  
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx  writes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9209343/Austrian-vil
lage-F-ing-to-vote-on-name-change.html
On  a perhaps related note: imagine roadsigns from ancient times were left 
to stand  in a country as monuments to perished places etc. Imagine then a 
social upheaval  that led these roadsigns to become shrines at which people 
worshipped. Would  these shifts in their "use" not mean that their sense was 
changed from their  original sense for those who used them in ancient times, 
even if 'what-is-said'  appears unchanged?

Answers on a postcard to...
Dnl
Ldn 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
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: