[lit-ideas] Re: Does the sign say its own sense? An Austrian example
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:17:21 +0100 (BST)
________________________________
From: Phil Enns <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Since Donal's claims concern what is implicit, the appropriate
response is not a rebuttal or refutation but rather an acknowledgement
that the claim is convincing or not. One cannot prove or demonstrate
what is implicit in a text. >
On the contrary, as much as we can prove or demonstrate meaning by what is
explicit in a text we may also do so by what is implicit or what must be
implied.
A simple legal example of a text whose meaning is implicit (there are many):
there is (in English law) a restriction on awarding compensation in criminal
cases involving an insured vehicle in an "accident" i.e. a criminal court has
no power to make a person pay for damage arising from an "accident" involving
an insured vehicle. Someone deliberately drives a vehicle into a building
causing much damage to the vehicle and the building: the question is whether
this is an "accident"? There is nothing explicit in the relevant act defining
"accident". There are two broad meanings of "accident". (1) one is "accident"
as in 'It was an accident' rather than deliberate, or 'It was an accident' as
in 'It was no one's fault': on this meaning the deliberately caused damage is
not the result of an "accident", and the court can make the offender pay. (2)
Where "accident" is used to mean "incident" - as in 'There was a serious
accident earlier on the M25", which does
not have the implication that the accident was no one's fault: on this
meaning, the deliberate damage arises from an "incident" involving an insured
vehicle, and so the court has no power to award compensation.
Absent anything explicit, Phil would have us believe there can be no rational
argument as to what is implicit here. Yet it is clear that (2) is the implicit
meaning, and this can be demonstrated by rational argument. Why must (2) -
implicitly not explicitly - be the meaning? Because the restriction is in
relation to powers of sentencing for criminal offences. Where no one is at
fault - where there is an "accident" in sense (1) - there can be no criminal
offence: and the section cannot mean to say that, where there is no criminal
offence, there is no power to award compensation in a criminal court for
consequent damage, as this goes without saying. So, rationally, (2) must be the
meaning: and the proof or demonstration is adequate here to show what is
implicit.
>Furthermore, I don't understand how something can be very clearly implicit.>
The above example is surely an example of something both implicit and yet very
clear.
>Surely that would mean it is explicit, no? >
No. It is not explicit because no express wording is used to indicate the sense
of "accident" as between (1) and (2): so the meaning must be implicit, or be
taken - impliedly - when we consider the word in its context.
Now, when we turn to the POV that I suggest is implicit in PI, it is simply
false to suggest that absent an explicit statement by W there can be no
rational argument here. Endorsing Robert's opinion is not per se a rational
argument either - and I must confess I do not see much rational argument so far
underpinning Robert's view that he does not see what I take to be implicit.
Whereas my earlier post listed a series of points in the text that rationally
support the implicit POV.
It seems to me the way to meet to these points is either by pointing to
something explicit that tells against them or to give an alterative reading
that better fits the text. Neither has been put on the table afaicansee.
Aside from being mistaken that implicit matters cannot be rationally argued,
the unfortunate upshot of Phil's suggestion (that they cannot be rationally
argued) might be to think no rational argument is needed to meet the case for
the 'key tenet' as it is merely implicit and so beyond rational argument. This
suggestion is bogus.
Donal
Trust me
London
Other related posts:
