[lit-ideas] Re: Misunderstanding Popper
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 09:20:33 -0400 (EDT)
In a message dated 9/25/2013 6:24:04 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in his interesting reply to Omar K, in "Re:
Popper's Infallibility": "the Poper is an anti-Popper."
I'm not so sure about that.
It would allow, by 're-implication' that the anti-Popper is Poper, which
sounds heretical.
On the one hand, we may need more evidence (or shall I say, 'context'?) for
the claim by Popper (from memory): "It is impossible to communicate
without the possibility of misunderstanding". Chomsky, and oddly enough Grice
--
who was Grice's senior -- would speak of the 'ideal' communicator(s). Grice
compares his theory to the ideal theory of gases.
In an ideal situtation such as philosophers are interested in, there is no
possibility of error.
A utters 'x' thereby meaning that p (e.g. "War is war" -- "A hasn't really
_said_ anything; he said that war is war").
B understands 'x' or rather understands A as having meant that p by
uttering x.
There is a Derridean twist to this, which is what I read from Helm. Take
the obvious (to me) implicature:
"I will be what I will be" -- cfr. Doris Day to her daughter:
Doris Day's daughter: Will I be pretty? Will I marry rich?
Doris Day: Che sarà sarà (roughly: "whatever will be will be").
--- As Helm notes, addressees with different 'presuppositions' may derive
different implicatures from nothing that has been said ("Doris Day didn't
say anything; she said that whatever would be would be"). Even, the Utterer
himself or herself, with different implicatures, may expand his/her
implicature in various different ways.
The end result ('end' is redundant) is that there is no FINAL
'interpretation' (unless you do hold an 'ideal' theory (alla ideal theory of
gases) as
Grice does.
By saying that there is always the possibility of error in interpretation,
Popper is holding, authoritatively, that there is ONE correct
interpretation, even if most 'idiots' (he won't use the phrase, even in
Viennese) may
have it wrong.
Or something.
Compared to this, the Pope looks candid -- and, since we are playing with
tautologies -- yes, he is a Catholic (unlike Popper).
The search for a context to Popper's claim -- that error is all-pervasive
-- may lead us to discuss the _reasons_ Popper provides for it, which, as it
looks, comes out as rather an unwanted gratuitious generalisation aimed at
Chomsky and Grice in their sincere attempts to build an 'ideal' theory of
communicative performance. Or something.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
