[lit-ideas] Re: Not Cricket
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 28 Mar 2015 13:24:29 +0100
I haven't read much of Hintikka but I have got a positive impression,
especially as he seems to understand something of chess as well. For
example, he speaks of rules of logical inference on the analogy to rules of
chess, which are necessary to play the game but not sufficient to play it
well. Good reasoning, he thinks, requires an understanding of strategic
rules as well. This looks like I might want to read more of him, if I
manage to find the texts.
O.K
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Popper would distinguish between
>
> X is not cricket,
>
> and
>
> Cricket is not x.
>
> He found the right-to-left/left-to-right distinction crucial to his
> philosophical enterprise.
>
> Hintikka: the philosophical grounds of rationality: intentions,
> categories, ends.
>
> My last post today!
>
> O. K. was wondering about game theory. When Hintikka was invited to
> contribute to
>
> P. G. R. I. C. E.
>
> Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends
>
> properly published by Clarendon
>
> he (Hintikka) had no better idea than to provide his version of game
> theory -- and it makes for some fascinating read, if you are into
> Scandinavian
> realism. Conversation is not a zero-sum game, he says, since
>
> WA ^ WB =/= /0
>
> to be read: the intersection of A's and B's desires is NOT the null set.
>
> The programme by Hintikka was developed by Lauri Carlson in "Dialogue
> Games", which was translated to American as "Dialog games". Yes, this
> philosopher I like uses the expression 'game', but only at Harvard, to
> amuse his
> students. He speaks of conversation as a game (in his 1967 William James
> Lectures), ;conversational game', of contributions to conversation as
> 'conversational moves' (not all of them 'forced', you know) and the
> 'conversational
> rules' (he prefers maxims, since he is a Kantian at heart). It is a
> cooperative, rather than a competitive game, but some interpreters coined
> copetition to blend cooperation and competition into one word. And it's
> not just a
> matter of rules, since there are 'strategies', too, although perhaps
> 'strategy' is TOO figurative for a literalist like this philosopher I
> like. The
> word derives from the Greek word for 'general', as in an army. And while
> some
> moves in the conversation may have a 'sneaky' (this philosopher's favourite
> phrase) side to them, most has to remain 'above board', since we are
> talking about communication, both explicit and implicit. If conversation
> is a
> game, there is a crucial distinction between a game (a word too general
> for
> some philosophers) and a 'play': a specific instance of a game. We do say
> "Let's play cricket", without having to use (but only 'implicate') the
> concept or conception of 'game'.
>
> When this philosopher I liked died, the obituary in THE TIMES (not all of
> his group had one!) read: "Professional philosopher and amateur cricket"
> and cricket is, literally (as Valley Speak goes) a game. Note that,
> truth-functionally speaking, "Professional philosopher and amateur
> cricketer" is
> equivalent to "Amateur cricketer and professional philosopher", which this
> philosopher I like would have preferred. The adjective 'amateur' is key:
> you
> don't get PAID for it: that seems to _spoil_ the point of, well, amateur,
> or
> gentlemanly (as it used to be called) cricket.
>
> Compared to this, Witters and his language games, belongs _elsewhere_.
>
> 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:
