[lit-ideas] The Rankers and the Rankees
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:55:34 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 11/7/2013 3:18:41 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes in "Re: Philosophers are ranekd again":
"Among
those who commented was David Papineau, a (and I mean no offence to idiots
without tenure or chairs) professor-*****t of the first order - so if he is
the
calibre of the voter involved that explains a lot (including Popper's
relatively poor showing). I mean read Papineau's critiques of Popper for
'juvenile misreadings'"
---
I'm not so sure I would call Papineau, as McEvoy does, a ****** -- but
then I never use ***** in mixed company -- never mind polite.
But McEvoy raises a good point about ranking. It involves
A RANKER
and
A RANKEE
Suppose:
Speranza ranks Grice the most important philosopher in the last 200 years.
McEvoy ranks Popper the most important philosopher in the last 200 years.
Geary ranks Sartre the most important philosopher in the last 200 years.
The rankers are, in alphabetical order: Geary, McEvoy, and Speranza. The
rankees are, again in alphabetical order: Grice, Popper and Sartre.
---- "To rank" is an illocutionary act. Urmson discusses the ranking of
apples in his "Ranking" (a revised edition of which came out as "On
Grading"). He notes that 'grading' is usually arbitrary. His examination of
the
grading of apples in the Oxford fruit market was once laughed at as a study of
meta-ethics.
In "The conception of value", Grice is concerned with 'valuing' as a verb,
which relates to 'ranking' and 'grading'. Grice notes that while 'valuing'
is subjective, it may attain objective and thus absolute status.
Grice ranked Kantotle the best _simpliciter_.
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:
