[lit-ideas] Is Popper Mortal?
- From: jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, teemu17@xxxxxxxxx, andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 18:13:17 -0400
R. Paul:
--
the original version there was a universal
quantifier, 'For all x, if x is a man, and so on and so on…
Popper could not distinguish between substitutional account of universal
quantification and his nose.
Man is not a scientific terminology (Consider the name of NY Governor's former
mistress, You-Man). Darwin tried to elucidate this by talking of 'homo sapiens'
instead.
It's no use dwelling on Aristotle. "zoon" cannot translate into English,
because he thought _plants_ (like mustard, etc) were "zoa", i.e. living beings
and thus 'mortal' -- corruptible was his favourite word. "De generatione et
corruptione".
Rocks on the other hand, don't necessarily corrupt.
Socrates is involved here, since he corrupted the youth. He would never have
condemned had he corrupted a chemical substance (e.g. gold). Or maybe yes.
Solon was pretty strict, they say.
So, science can choose 'homo sapiens' as 'theoretical object' and discuss it.
'mortal' means 'corruptible' which is a dispositional term. So we should
replace it by something more physical, e.g. 'kicked the bucket', or 'is
currently buried or has been cremated'.
I'm never sure. Consider "Elvis Presley" -- is he mortal? Axe Geary. On the
other hand, Popper _was_ possibly _mortal_. Grice, too died, of 'non-natural
causes', and I'm not feeling too well this spring. (As Voltaire woud say in
French).
Cheers,
JL
Supercharge your AIM. Get the AIM toolbar for your browser.
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] Is Popper Mortal?
