[lit-ideas] Re: The Philosophy of Bachelor
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 00:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
Not to be pedantic, but bachelor isn't the same as unmarried male. (There is a
divorced male, a widower, and a male child who is too young to marry)
O.K.
________________________________
From: "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, March 15, 2013 4:49 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] The Philosophy of Bachelor
In a message dated 3/14/2013 8:36:55 P.M. UTC-02,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Quine's confuses encodement and decodement
--- with reference to E. Y.'s paraphrasing Quine's "Two dogmas"
-- cited in
Quine. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” - University of San Diego Home ...
home.sandiego.edu/.../twodogmas.p... -
Formato file: Microsoft Powerpoint -
begin quote:
Quine's goals. Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two
dogmas. ... “Bachelor” and “unmarried male” have the same meaning.
Surface ...
“Bachelor” and “unmarried male” have the same meaning.
Surface grammar again suggest that this says there’s a 3-place on “
bachelor,” “unmarried male” and a Meaning.
But we can paraphrase as
“Bachelor” and “unmarried male” are synonymous
What we really have is a 2-place relation
Meanings (intensions) have been exorcized!
end quote.
In "In defense of a dogma", Grice and Strawson prefer to IGNORE ONE of
Quine's dogmas (holism) and go for the under-dog of 'analyticity'.
G&S's test:
A: My neighbour is a married bachelor.
B: I don't understand what you mean (+> implicature: what you said is
analytically false).
Scenario II:
A: My neighbour is a married bachelor.
B: I can't believe it! (+> implicature: what you said is contingently hard
to believe).
Grice thinks that a married bachelor being an oxymoron, we CAN treat
'bachelor' =df unmarried male.
I was using this example as one of ANALYSIS (hence Quine's dogma against
analyticity and analytic philosophy at large).
"the paradox of analysis" would be the keyword.
The point I was making is that analysis of this type is "Reductive" if we
think that the components of the universe are "married" and "male" rather
than 'bachelors'. Or not.
Possibly the paradox originates with Frege, and Popper was possibly aware
of it. Or not.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
