Quoting Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>: snip > Ordinary people like me don't like to have their > language messed with; they're still worrying about which goes where in > the case of 'this' and 'that,' which a man I met in a bar once said was > a metaphysical question if there ever was one. He was right. It stumped > both of us. snip For those of you wondering, what kind of a bar that was, and where on this planet could it possibly be, allow me the conjecture of an empirical hypothesis. It must have been that pub right next to New College, Oxford, where RP, Gilbert Ryle , Paul Heywood Hirst and their ilk would assemble, after a hard day of lectures and administrivia, to bang their heads on the ridiculously low ceilings, savour the extant exotic cheeses on offing, hoist a few cold ones and, lest it go unmentioned, entertain the young female Rhodes scholars from Canada and the U.S with questions to do with the cognitive significance of moral judgements (we know what term A.J used here, but this is prime time, after all). "Ordinary" indeed. About as "ordinary" as "ordinary language philosophy." Walter O. The Rock of the Avalon > > I was really worried though about Quine's definition. Surely, 'All men > are mortal' doesn't readily translate into a proposition about only one > x. One would hope that the original version there was a universal > quantifier, 'For all x, if x is a man, and so on and so on?' Moreover, > in the sentence provided by Phil, x might, for all we're told, range > over rocks, books, or cheap plastic razors. > Robert Paul > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html