[lit-ideas] Re: The Deontic And The Boulomaic
- From: "Walter C. Okshevsky" <wokshevs@xxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:26:13 -0230
Quoting Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx:
> It is a pleasure to reply to R. Paul's questions. He is serious and wants
> to know _the truth_.
On this, the day before summer and Father's Day, it is only fitting that Jl play
Kant to Robert's Pistorius.
Hermeneutics Forever,
Walter
>
>
> In a message dated 6/20/2009 11:29:49 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> rpaul@xxxxxxxx quotes my fresh
>
> >>It's best to deal with operators, like "deontic" and 'boulemaic' (the
> good,
> >>the teleological, the aretaic).
>
> And asks
>
> >Could you possibly mean 'boulomaic'?
>
> Well, I'm using the term I first came across in Allwood et al, "Logic in
> Linguistics", but let me check:
>
> Logic in linguistics - Google Books Result by Jens S. Allwood,
> Lars-Gunnar Andersson, Östen Dahl - 1977 - Language Arts & Disciplines - 185
> pages
> ... has to do with logical possibility), epistemic logic (which has to do
> with knowledge and belief) and even boulomaic logic (having to do with
> desire). ...
> books.google.com/books?isbn=0521291747...
>
> ------
>
> You are perfectly write -- as per googlebook hit above. They do use
> 'boulomaic'. It's of course from 'boule' in Greek, and neither 'boulomaic'
> nor
> 'boulemaic' are credited in the OED. I did write to _OED3@xxxxxxxxxx
> (mailto:OED3@xxxxxxxxx) for inclusion of 'boulomaic', but they say, "it's
> not very
> current yet". I suppose 'boulemaic' is ill-formed, so thanks.
>
> >I'm confused. When and where is it best to deal with 'operators' like
> >these? The sentence itself is ill-formed.
>
> Right -- it's not, in my parlance, a sentence. Only well-formed sentences
> are "sentences", but K. Trogge opposes this truth.
>
> >What have the words in
> >parentheses to do with what comes before them? Are they simply additions
> >to the first pair you mention or are they somehow interpretations of them?
>
> They were meant as interpretations of the boulomaic: the aretaic and the
> teleological (both viewed as boulomaic) as opposed to the deontic.
>
> R. Paul quotes my reasoning: Hannibal Lecter says (I never saw the film --
> was he into something _bad_?)
>
>
>
> >> I like icecream.
> _______________
> >> I ought to eat icecream.
>
> And writes:
>
> >This makes no sense to me.
>
> Well, it _is_ a version of what G. E. Moore called the 'naturalistic
> fallacy' but he committed the non-naturalistic fallacy, so what did HE know?
> "like" is more like 'will' or 'want', i.e. the boulomaic operator. In
> symbols
>
> B(a, p)
> ________
> D( a, p)
>
> The "is" of the 'boulomaic' yields the "ought" of the 'deontic'. Of course
> I was simplifying the premises, which should read:
>
> i. B(a, p)
> ii. B(a, i)
> iii. B(a, ii)
> iv. B(a, iii)
> ad infinitum
> _________________
>
> D(a, p).
>
> For any proposition "p" that is the object of a boulomaic attitude, if we
> can provide a Kantian chain of embedding justifications (I don't just want
> p, but want to want p, and want to want to want p, ...) this is exactly
> analogous to the non-existence of a clause to refute the universalizability
> of
> my pure motivation, and thus, obligation cashes out in desire (as Baker
> writes in PGRICE googlebooks ed Grandy/Warner)
>
> >Even if some magico-logician could parse this
> >as an argument (it looks like a practical syllogism dredged up off the
> >coast of the Adriatic, with some parts broken and others missing), it
> >would not follow that just because someone likes something, he ought to
> >do it. Hannibal Lecter comes to mind.
>
> Again, I haven't seen the film. He was the figment of some imagination. Who
> wrote the libretto? We should deal with real people. Anthony Hopkins looks
> like a reasonable fellow to me. He filmed a film near my birth-place, it's
> called "The Arsehole of the World", or the "Most beautiful place in the
> World". He came to film it with his forreign wife. We loved them.
>
> And thanks for your questions. I suppose that the addition of the further
> boulomaic operators do make more sense to you. There _has_ to be a way to
> define the deontic in terms of the boulomaic. My shot is a Gricean one
> which
> he calls Kantotelian or Ariskantian, since it magically connects both
> genius and leaves, for a change, Wittgenstein (genius as some say he was)
> out o
> f the picture.
>
> Cheers,
>
> J. L. Speranza
> Buenos Aires, Argentina
> **************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
> fingertips.
>
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000004)
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
