[lit-ideas] Relata
- From: jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 18:25:34 EST
Indeed. I'm currently, studying, incidentally, the category of "Relatio",
as referred to by Aristotle:
Cat.
1. ousia
2. poiotes
3. posotes
4. 'relatio'
Kant's Table of Categories
1. quantitas
2. qualitas
3. relatio
4. manner.
The "relatio" involves two relata. For one relatum relates to another
relatum.
According to Aristotle and Kant, everything is interrelated to everything.
For Grice, not so. Grice's example:
A: Mrs. Schlinker is an old windbag.
B: The weather has been delightful for this time of the year,
hasn't it.
(WoW, ii -- googlebooks)
Grice's gloss: B's reply fails to _relate_ to A's remark. The implicature
being that A has committed a _gaffe_.
Grice's critics noted that at a deeper level B's utterance does relate to
(or dovetail with) A's utterance. But Grice's 'relatio' relates to the
explicature, not to the implicature. Etc.
Cheers,
J. L. Speranza
for the Grice Club, etc.
In a message dated 1/1/2010 3:40:24 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
torgeir_fjeld@xxxxxxxx writes:
Merry new year.
Donal wrote:
What Popper might say is this: a "mobile army of metaphors" - along with
many other armies and non-armies, and mobile and immobile stuff - _might
play a role_ in the search for truth: but _they do not constitute truth_ (and
only relatavist legerdemain might convince you otherwise). Truth is the
correspondence (of a proposition) to the facts [a la Tarski].
May we infere that all those writing from de Saussure onwards are to be
regarded relatavist?
Other related posts:
