[lit-ideas] Re: The Paradigm-Case Argument

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:53:07 EDT
In a message dated 4/20/2009 7:13:10 P.M.  Eastern Daylight Time, 
rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
Larry Houlgate! He filled in  for me when I was on sabbatical years ago; 
indeed, the Houlgates rented our  house. One would think I'd have known 
what became of him, but I didn't.  Until now.

----

Yes, that was interesting.

I hadn't  checked, in the rush, the affiliation. I see it's UCLA. 

I know little of  Yosts, etc.

Apparently, the Speranzas in the States are bankers if you  believe _that_.

Anyway,

seems like an interesting article by "the  man who rented R. Paul's house".

---- 

In revising cites for the  OED under 'paradigm case', I see I was mistaken 
re: Benjamin. That's not the  Benjamin author of "Remembering". The 
collocation, 1937 is, as I recall, "a  paradigm case argument".

The second citation has it with definite  article, "the paradigm case" of 
this and that. This is funnny, but perhaps more  correct. I would think that, 
say, if 'wife' has a paradigm case, it would have  _the_ paradigm case.

Sisebuta is "the paradigm case" of wife some people  in Argentina. 

It's fun to play and joke with paradigm-cases, regardless  of Walter O. ---

I don't think this use is connected to Kuhn's, which  would have come later.

Of course, in Plato it is like 'exemplum'. Teach  'per examplum', 
'exemplaris' maybe, who knows.

What Larry H. is aiming at  is doubly complicated by the fact that he wants 
to narrow to 'sceptical doubt',  or something.

Indeed, this seems to be the main use of the PCA: against  _scepticism_ but 
I'd generalise it for any general claim  _whatsoever_.

Grice refers to Urmson as 'paradigm-case argument' in  "Retrospective 
Epilogue". I would think he is thinking of "Some thoughts on  validity". Grice 
seems to have seen the PCA as, well, er, ... paradigmatic of  the Oxford of 
the day.

The locus classicus seems to be our good friend N.  Malcolm. And Scott 
Soames, who graduated, I believe as a  philosopher-cum-philosopher from MIT 
(and 
thus many conservative philosphers,  like me (!) don't forgive him for this 
Janus-faced approach to things!) has  analysed Malcolm's case vis a vis 
Grice in "Philosophical Analysis in the  Twentieth Century". I sometimes 
contribute to S. Baynes' 'history of analytic  philosophy' (for philosophers in 
the anal retentive tradition), hence my  update.

I would think the PCA can be  formalised:


OBJECTOR:  There's no [insert your  term].

PCArguer:  Of course there's [insert your term]. 

One  would think, "There are no material objects". "This is my hand" by 
Moore.  Indeed, as Grice saw Lalcolm, what Malcolm did was rephrase Moore's 
argument 'in  a linguistic key' as it were.

Personally, I don't think my _hand_ is a  material object, but there you 
are.

This brings us back to McEvoy's  refusal to _understand_. Give me an 
example of a simple thing in life, he  asks.

Reminds me of Kant,

"Give us an example of a ding-an-sich,  master".

"Ding-an-sich my marbles"

JLS
Bolonia,  etc.  

**************Access 350+ FREE radio stations anytime from anywhere on the 
web. Get the Radio Toolbar! 
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolradio/download.html?ncid=emlcntusdown00000003)
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Re: The Paradigm-Case Argument

Other related posts:
