[lit-ideas] Re: Hobbes's Proof
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 13:31:15 EDT
In a message dated 4/6/2011 6:50:50, donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
If so, why does JLS fail to see how this can prove anything?
----
Perhaps we need to be reminded of the Sources. Geary knows the Thora. And
he has a semi-completed biography of Moses.
In those days (with no digital watches), it is unlikely that he (Moses)
would have pinpoint to a specific time ("Moses died at 1:51 a.m."). Without
Greenwich having been discovered, precise location in terms of Long. and
Lat. is also unlikely. Perhaps what we find is some vague statement like,
"Moses felt dizzy; the next morning he was dead."
------ In fact, Moses would be the first to know of possible causes for
his demise. Yet, Hobbes is given credit for having conclusively shown that
the Thora
"could not have been written by Moses since they include a reference to
Moses".
The argument seems to rely on a case of 'petitio principii':
"Moses is dead," said Moses.
It's like Moore's paradox, "It is raining, but I don't believe it". What
Yost calls a 'pragmatic contradiction' (His example is the ITM lady who asks
him, "Can I ask you a question?"). But if it is a _pragmatic_
contradiction, it is not a LOGICAL contradiction.
Plus, we don't know if the two "Moses" are co-referential.
The "Moses" referred to in the Thora may be a different Moses from the
Moses in Exodus, say. (After all, it is likely that a lot of mothers called
their children "Moses" after the 'famous' one).
Etc.
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:
