Mike doesn't understand much, but he remembers laughing when hearing Adalai
Stevenson tell of an incident in which a woman approached him after one of
his speeches and praised it highly, telling him he should have it
published. Stevenson thanked her and told her that a selection of his
speeches was being gathered for posthumous publication. "Oh, yes,' the
woman replied, "the sooner the better."
Now as to JL's reply to my reply to his response to my post of Dorothy
Parker's witticism in which I asked what did she mean by "purse"? JL
glibly says she meant "purse". To his summary dismissal of my cogent
question, I reply: "Who steals my purse steals trash." Ergo, according to
Shakespeare, the inventor of the English Language, words say whatever the
hell you want them to say. In other words, there's no such thing as THE
meaning of anything. All if flux.
On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 10:27 AM, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Can one not understand the meaning of a word (or series of words) well
enough
but understand little of the concept being represented/expressed by that
word
(or series)?
For example: Mike seems to understand the meanings of the words in the
expression "titling one's posthumous collection" but he may not understand
in
any comprehensive manner the network of conceptual inferences and
entailments
in which that expression is embedded. So the inference that the expression
entails one must be dead in order to be able to be titling one's posthumous
collection is a conceptual one. One that is usually false, of course. Or
am I
titling at windmills here?
On a research term, Walter O
Quoting dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
In a message dated 11/2/2015 12:52:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,dead by
wokshevs@xxxxxx writes:
Is there a difference between arguing about words and arguing about
concepts?
Don't think so -- in which case, all that McEvoy abbreviated as "CA"
becomes "WA" word analysis -- 'conceptual' sounds more pretentious, and
Grice,
being pretentious ('what was HE pretending?', Geary asks*), preferred
'conceptual'. But when titling his posthumous collection ('but he was
not
then, right?', Geary asks*) he chose "Studies in the way of words" and
'Studies in the way of concepts'**.things'.
Cheers,
Speranza
* Geary, Memphis Metaphysical Ministry, Occasional Paper No. 61.
* Grice is punning on Locke, 'words', 'way of words' and 'ideas' and 'way
of ideas'. There's a third -- as Yolton notes, 'things' and 'way of
------------------------------------------------------------------
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
