[lit-ideas] Re: The Compressor Shorted To Ground

  • From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:54:06 EST

 
"It gets tedious trying to tell a customer  why his compressor shorted to 
ground when he doesn't know what a compressor  is or does or what shorted 
means."
 
 
----
 
Thanks L. K. Helm.
 
But wait, I don't mean to offend Geary.  Philosophers are worse!
 
---- In any case, (i) I didn't get the  explanation of the little 
screwdriver, but I'll re-read it
 
More importantly, rereading Geary's post  (above) one notices the 
philosophical 
 
                   *why*
 
-- which, as Piaget has explained to us, is  constitutive of the 
developmental process of truth-functional  logic.
 
Geary had written:
 
"It [does]  get[...] [very] tedious [to] try[...] 
to tell a  customer _why_ [my emphasis. JLS] his 
compressor  shorted to ground when he [or worse,  she.
JLS] doesn't know what a  compressor is or does 
[important distinction here, ontological  versus
teleo-functional] or what shorted means [more like
a semantics  question]."
 
Indeed, I am reminded of how  brilliantly I got my A+
in Ethics, when I recited R. M. Hare's  paper in the Philippa Foot 
collection, along with Geach's  reply.
[It was, alas, a Spanish version --]. In  any case
Geach and Hare are discussing words ending  in
-or, like compressor,  etc.
 
Geach's, or I think Hare's, point is  that
 
(1) This is a good  compressor.
 
is something that we _can_ understand  _even_ if
 
(2) Utterer does not know what a compressor  is
or does.
 
So that would leave Geary with less  tiredeness.
 
For the 'customer' (or 'person' as I  prefer) need
_not_ know what a compressor is to realise  that
the one she has is "no longer  good".
 
Now, with 'shorted [to ground], I would  also
appeal to the innateness hypothesis in  Chomsky,
and say that 'to short to ground' is to  'diminish
in size, in a compressory sort of  way.
 
The thing is, Geary comes out as somewhat  irreverent
by comparing his technical problems in  _justifying_
a 'why' question that I believe is _not_  motivated
for the Thalesian purity of learning who  Physis
works, but more as a justification for, to  echo
Walter, some propreptic action (on the part  of
the customer).
 
Cheers,
 
JL
  Buenos Aires,  Argentina
 




**************************************Check out AOL's list of 2007's hottest 
products.
(http://money.aol.com/special/hot-products-2007?NCID=aoltop00030000000001)

Other related posts: