[lit-ideas] Re: Popper and Peacocke on representation

  • From: palma <palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2014 10:44:37 +0200

at last speranza is clear, davidson is wrong (since he is not grice) grice
is grice or not, while it is rather clear that popper is confused (since he
is not grice) while grice solved three outstanding problems
1 juvenile acne
2. weapons of mass destruction
3. the deep reason why cricket is a stupid game, or not


On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 1:26 AM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> Omar K. was wondering about a reference to Davidson:
>
> "Well, if  Davidson really thought "that you cannot have a 'sentence' ("The
> cat sat   on the mat") without the BELIEF (or opinion) to the effect that
> the cat sat  on  the mat." he must have been stark mad. I am thinking that
> this is  probably a misunderstanding. [...] Okay, we might say that lying,
> if
> successful,  requires at least one person to believe it, but if there is no
> way of accounting  for jokes, fictions, second/language teaching examples,
> examples on Lit/ideas  etc., without presupposing 'belief' in the
> proposition, this is basically  ridiculous."
>
> A bit of context may be in order.
>
> The reference to Davidson came from P. Enns, who was quoting Davidson as,
> as it were, a way to illuminate the prose of Heidegger (specifically
> Heidgger's  writings on the nature of language -- the early and the later
> Heidegger, in  conjunction). Let us have that first-hand quote again.
>
> Perhaps after  that, we can immerse onto the question of the priority or
> alleged priority (as  per Davidson) of opinions over utterances that Omar
> K.
> is, in my reading,  addressing:
>
> P. Enns had written:
>
> "Alongside the importance of  Heidegger's essay, 'The question concerning
> technology', which discusses  instrumental reason and the role of technique
> [...,] I would also add  Heidegger's work on language in *Being
> and Time* as well as his later essays,  such as 'The way to language'. In
> these writings, Heidegger explores the ways in  which language is
> constitutive of understanding and the intelligibility of the  world, not as
> a tool or lens with which we encounter the world, as though  language were
> something through which we picture, represent or refer to the  world, but
> rather as being human. Whether it is in his discussion of how  language is
> a
> necessary condition for human life in the world, or the way in  which
> language precedes our understanding of the world, Heidegger tries to show
>  us that
> language is much more than a means of communication. While the later
> Heidegger does occasionally indulge in a mystification of language,
> in both  the early and later writings, his aim, to borrow a phrase from
> Davidson, is to  re-establish unmediated touch with the familiar objects
> whose
> antics make our  sentences and opinions true or false."
>
> To re-word:
>
> To re-establish unmediated (i.e. _sans_ representation?)
>
> touch with the familiar objects
>
>  (such as cats and mats)
>
> whose antics (notably the cat) make our sentencs AND OPINIONS
> [my emphasis -- Speranza] true [...]."
>
> We now corroborate, thanks to  P. Enns, that the quote comes from
> Davidson's sort of famous 'conceptual  scheme' essay.
>
> In trying to elaborate on the Davidson quote, I ended up  emphasising the
> role of 'representation' (not a word Davidson uses  admittedly).
>
> And I thought of bringing in Peacocke (who's written extensively on  this,
> and, in my view, brilliantly).
>
> And, I thought of ALSO bringing, 'into the bargain', as it were, Popper --
> since McEvoy has a serious interest in this philosopher and it looked as if
>  Popper's Kantianism may contradict some of Davidson's points -- and _a
> fortiori_, Heidegger: that there is such a thing as an unmediated touch
> with
> stuff. (I hope my phrasing is clear!)
>
> Omar notes:
>
> "Well, if Davidson really thought "that you cannot  have a 'sentence' ("The
> cat sat  on the mat") without the BELIEF (or  opinion) to the effect that
> the cat sat on  the mat." he must have been  stark mad. I am thinking that
> this is probably a misunderstanding. ... Okay, we  might say that lying, if
> successful, requires at least one person to believe it,  but if there is no
> way of accounting for jokes, fictions, second/language  teaching examples,
> examples on Lit/ideas etc., without presupposing 'belief' in  the
> proposition,
> this is basically ridiculous."
>
> Yes.
>
> It may be interesting to emphasise that Davidson is speaking of  'sentences
> and opinions' in the quoted passage
>
> -- where 'opinion' must stand for belief (or some such 'cognitive'
> psychological attitude -- versus a conative one such as 'desire', which are
> fulfilled or not, rather than true or false).
>
> But this should perhaps trigger, if we are in the right philosophical
> mood, a broader question.
>
> It is easy enough, after all, alla Davidson, to ascribe truth to sentences
> -- rather than to opinions.
>
> This is the Tarski schema. Yet, in some conceptions of knowledge (notably
> the one one and again contradicted by McEvoy) it is _beliefs_ that are
> primarily  true, not sentences -- Plato's Theaetetus, the earliest source
> possibly, as  cited by Gettier.
>
>
> Davidson has gone on record as a symmetricalist: he cannot have an opinion
> without a sentence and vice versa -- this is for him both an
> epistemological AND  an ontological point. (I was inspired into this
> interpretation of
> Davidson's  philosophy by Anita Avramides DPhil dissertation at Oxford,
> advised
> by  Strawson).
>
> On the other hand, for those philosophers who have explored  the idea of
> content (as Peacocke has -- as in his book, "Content", Blackwell,  but
> also in
> his inaugural lecture as Waynflete Professor of Metaphysics at  Oxford),
> the role of representation becomes crucial.
>
> In Peacocke's case, it is perceptual content that counts, which may brings
> a dose of scepticism to Davidson's realist (if that's what it is, even
> scientific-realist) idea that there is or should be or could be an
> unmediated
> touch with familiar things and their antics -- I would NOT use 'object'
> which  presupposes a full epistemology alla Kant).
>
> Alston (in his classic "Philosophy of Language") famously (or is it
> infamously cites Grice (a favourite philosopher of mine) as an
> 'ideationist',
> alla Locke. For Locke, indeed, there is 'mediate' signification, and
> 'immediate'  signfiication. And this may relate to Davidson's use of
> 'unmediated' in
> the  quote provided by Enns.
>
> Locke, Alston says, holds that words SIGNIFY, immediately, the IDEAS in the
>  mind of he or she who uses them -- but they signify, or aim at signifying,
>  mediately, the THINGS for which these ideas stand -- hence (I think) what
> Popper, elsewhere, refers to as the new 'way of ideas' (which becomes,
> eventually, the title of Grice's posthumous book).
>
> Perhaps talk of representation as keyword here sounds pretentious. It
> shouldn't, I hope!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>



-- 
palma,  e TheKwini, KZN












 palma

cell phone is 0762362391




 *only when in Europe*:

inst. J. Nicod

29 rue d'Ulm

f-75005 paris france

Other related posts: