[lit-ideas] Re: Lawyers love to argue about words
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2015 09:58:29 +0000 (UTC)
Is there a difference between arguing about words and arguing about concepts?
Some of my students at times utter in frustration: "Walter, all this is word
games. We're just disagreeing about the meanings of words, and everybody has
their own definitions for the words they use." I reply by saying that the
disagreements we're having and studying are really about concepts and
principles, and such disagreements are philosophical ones.>
This is a typically honest admission by Walter but the story should not end
with Walter's reply.
Walter should have his right of reply to the students but the students should
be told there is at least one philosopher, Popper, who would agree they are
right to be frustrated and they are right that much of what that passes for
philosophical discussion is "word games...[and] just disagreeing about the
meanings of words". Popper would add that sometimes a point of substantive
importance can be extracted from these discussions but explain that if it is
substantive then it is a synthetic metaphysical claim and not a mere analytic
conceptual one. Popper's work would provide a set of important arguments as to
why so-called "conceptual analysis" is an intellectual hoax, to be placed
alongside other hoaxes like Scientific Marxism or Scientific Freudianism or
Induction or JTB theory, and much more 'food for thought' besides.
"Hold on - 'JTB theory'? A hoax?" Yeh, Popper is foremost a theorist of
knowledge ['epistemologist'] and he doesn't merely quibble with the view that
"knowledge = JTB" [by suggesting a special quibbly notion of 'justication' or
of 'belief' or of 'true'] but thinks this model of knowledge is fundamentally
mistaken - especially as it cannot do justice to "objective knowledge" in W3
terms which underpins the runaway success of modern science.
Without being certain, I suspect Walter no more alludes to eminent philosophers
who agree with his frustrated students than he teaches any anti-JTB theory of
note when expounding how "knowledge = JTB".
If so, contrast lawyers - a profession sometimes regarded as low in ethics. A
lawyer is liable to be drummed out of the profession if they suppress any legal
authorities that might be against their argument before the court, for
effectively this would be to try to win the argument by possible deception as
to the state of the authorities. Yet it seems a common occurrence that academic
philosophers can suppress from discussion eminent philosophers that challenge
the fundamentals of their approach. It's a disgrace really.
Donal
Other related posts:
