[lit-ideas] Re: Meaning = Use?
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 08:28:02 +0100
JLS recites:
>McEvoy's second point:
"(2) the idea that the sense of expressions may be said in terms of some
relevant "rules" is overturned when we see it shown that no "rule" (e.g.
"Take a number and continue to add 2") ever says its own sense nor can the
sense of a "rule" ever be said by some appeal to a further or meta-rule
because
that meta-rule would also fail to say its own sense. In the later W's
approach, idiomatic expressions like "Get you" are no more problematic than
what might appear to be "literal expressions" like "I get a taxi to work
everyday": they are all on a level as none stand in need of theoretical
explanation (beyond what may be shown as to their use) and none are capable of
being explained or their sense said (beyond what may be shown as to their
use).">
JLS then comments:
"This seems to reject analyticity with regard to 'get you'."
It seems to me "analyticity" is beside the point: W's main point is that sense
can only be shown not said. It might be added (though it is implicit in the
claim that a "meta-rule would also fail to say its own sense"), that while W of
course accepts we often 'use words to explain the meaning of other words' his
view is that we are using words to show the sense and that the words will not
say the sense. This idea, that fundamentally words only show their meaning
(usually via their use) and do not say it [and hence can only show the meaning
of other words and do not say that meaning], does not involve "analyticity" in
traditional terms: if you give someone who has no acquaintance with
number-systems a proposition like "2 + 2 = 4" you cannot convey its meaning
through "analyticity" but only by showing its use (the explanation of its
meaning in terms of "analyticity" is parasitic upon meaning that has been
already shown as to the use of the terms involved).
It is obvious that the sense of an expression like "Get you" cannot be
conveyed by mere "analyticity"; and a dispute as to whether it is analytic (or
not) is a philosophers' dispute that is parasitic on meaning that is already
established without involving any philosophical notion of "analytic".
Dnl
Ldn
On Monday, 29 September 2014, 5:27, David Ritchie <profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Sep 27, 2014, at 6:53 PM, (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
wrote:
>which leads me to a note I received yesterday about a forthcoming symposium
>or workshop (as I think they called it) and was wondering what Popper
>would say about the meaning of 'empire' that we were discussing with L. Helm
>sometime ago. "Imperialism of Science".
>
Background to your conference invitation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FmEjDaWqA4
David Ritchie,
Portland, Oregon
Other related posts:
