[lit-ideas] Re: The Logic of "Remember"
- From: Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Robert Paul)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 09 Nov 2004 20:14:11 PST
JL writes:
In a message dated 11/8/2004 6:51:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,
Robert.Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
I think it is analytically true (whatever that means) that one can't,
strictly speaking, remember what never happened.
Below, the first Google page for hits for "false memories". Odd how all
those people are _misusing_ *memory*, then?
--------------------------------------------------------
But they aren't. They are talking about things that are _not_ memories. One
might think that there was an analogy here between 'false memories' and false
beliefs (which are even easier to create). Yet although a false belief is a real
belief which happens to be false, a so-called false memory is not a real memory
which just happens not to be a memory of anything that really happened: it is
not a memory at all.
If we distinguish between remembering that and remembering how (similar to the
knowing that/knowing how distinction), both memories and 'false memories' fall
under remembering that. So, one might argue that if a memory has as its object
some event in the past, 'false memories' are not memories for they have by
definition no such object. With knowing how it is different, as Aristotle would
say.
Robert Paul
The Reed Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
