[lit-ideas] Re: Insults Which Are Humorous (Maybe)
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 9 May 2010 13:04:35 EDT
In a message dated 5/9/2010 1:09:58 P.M. Argentina Standard Time,
jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx writes:
Every sentence will have to be scrutinized in every possible light, even
flashlight, to try to determine if you mean what we think you mean or mean
what you mean implicaturely -- that is, impurely. That's just mean.
Mike Geary
Sergeant Major of the Memphs Mobile Army of Metaphors
----
No, the case is easier. You should re-read that note about the German who
married a cat, and provide a more grounded judgement, rather than the rather
hasty,
"I am guessing Helm is trying to insult me in a jocular way". Perhaps he
wanted a backed statement as to the philosophical implications of the
assertion (that a German man married a cat). I'm sure you will find the time
to do
it. I know I WILL. But if you summarise the main point that will be good.
No, irony is good -- it's not "meany". Incidentally, "mean", as per "mean"
as in "Mean Mister Mustard" has a different etymology from "mean" in "I
mean what I say". There is still a third word here, "Mean Time" -- this is not
time meant, or time nasty, but short for 'medianus', i.e. middle time.
My point was a simple one, best summarised by Grice rather than the name
dropping list you dropped of the 15 philosophers
Austin
Chomsky
Davidson
Dennett
Donnellan
Fillmore
Fodor
Geach
Harman
Katz
Putnam
Quine
Searle,
Strawson
Ziff
Austin -- he was just a closet Gricean, vide Clark, "A reconciliation of
Austin and Grice"
Chomsky -- his first name is Avram. He misquotes H. P. Grice as "A. P.
Grice" in index to "Aspects of the theory of syntax". So what does he know?
Davidson -- he was too simplistic for Gricean subleties
Dennett -- he believes in Descartes's ghost in the machine
Donnellan -- Grice thinks his identificatory/nonidentificatory does better
than referential-attributive
Fillmore -- is a linguist, doesn't count.
Fodor -- is a mentalist, and believes in the Language of Thought, unlike
Grice.
Geach -- he is a mediaevalist, and believes in substance and accident like
Aristotle. No sense of Frege.
Harman -- he just 'copied' Grice when Grice was lecturing at Princeton. He
is good, but not as Griceian as Grice was.
Katz -- He is more of a linguist than a philosopher, and too much
influenced by Chomsky's mentalism.
Putnam -- he had an attitude and criticised Grice for being too formal.
Quine -- was totally misguided in his rejection of the analytic-synthetic,
and his stimulus meaning is a joke.
Searle -- would play for the gallery and Grice would rather provide
fine-toothed argumentation.
Strawson -- was Grice's pupil who hardly superseded his master. His
truth-value gap theory is a joke, and a bad one at that.
Ziff -- he is a Russian emigree, and never understood Grice even if he
tried to publicise himself by criticising him. His "Analysis" piece is a joke.
----- So this leaves us only with Grice:
"I think he insulted me"
"I think he amused me"
are both WRONG.
So, you have to re-read the "Man married a cat" thing and come up with
something more substantial. Did you feel offended? Why? Did you feel amused?
Why?
I will do same, and report back. I never married a German or a cat, so will
have to practice a bit of Weberian einfuehlung (empathy) to try and
connect.
Etc.
J. L. Speranza
Buenos Aires, Argentina.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
