[lit-ideas] Re: "Promissory Materialism" Correction

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 13:58:11 +0000 (GMT)



________________________________
From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, 15 November 2011, 21:00
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: "Promissory Materialism" Correction


>"A. Here there is snow.
B. Here there is no snow.
Assuming "Here" refers to same point in space-time, these A and B contradict."
 
>Who in their right mind would assume “here” refers to the same point in space 
>time? That’s why there’s an “A” and a “B” – to indicate that the “here” is 
>different from speaker to speaker.>
That is not btw why there's an 'A' and a 'B' - they are there simply so they 
can they be deployed as shorthand signs for the propositions they are stated to 
denote, propositions that do not differ "from speaker to speaker" but remain 
constant or invariant in their content. But, really, who in their right mind 
would ask "Who in their right mind would assume x?" when x has explicitly been 
assumed [and indeed implicitly might be assumed otherwise] in order that the 
contradiction between 'A' and 'B' does not give rise to vacuous quibbling along 
the lines that we can remove the contradiction by taking 'A' and 'B' to mean 
something other than the meaning assumed (for example by taking "Here" to 
denote different points in space and time)? 

Next on the "Eric & Adriano Show": a dazzling demonstration that there is no 
contradiction between the view that A. the banks bear a large measure of the 
blame for our current fiscal woes, and the view B. it is not the case that the 
banks bear a large measure of the blame for our current fiscal woes - as we may 
assume "banks" and "blame" etc. mean something logically quite different in 
each case, and who in their right mind will bother to stop us?

And for their next (pointless) trick?

Donal
Jogging On
London

Other related posts: