Despite what Richard may think, "merely" is a very important qualifying word -
and not merely a merely "merely".
DM: The importance of "merely", and related words, are that that help make
clear the range of a claim - whether, for example, it is a "be-all-and-end-all"
type claim, such as "the be all and end all" of 'being a person is having a
brain', or a much more limited kind of claim such as that 'having a brain' is
one of the necessary conditions of being a person.
RH------------ But Donal, imagine just for a moment that the person making that
claim is a puppet or a famous fool or one of those shadows cast on the opposite
cave wall from us, chained here as we are and forced only to view the actions
of these shadow figures on the opposite wall. What difference does it make if
that shadow on the left claims that the moon is made of green cheese? If he
uses one of your super-important qualifying words such as merely, does his
silly "I believe" statement now take on some kind of new gravitas?
I, personally, am very suspicious of your use of the expression "very very."
Methinks the lady doth protest too much. Might we have forgotten for a moment
the moment of your every pearl of wisdom, so much so that you feel obliged,
nay, gezwungen (driven/forced) to qualify it with a "very very." As an antidote
to this kind of writing, I ask myself, would Wittgenstein ever have said "very
very"? I don't think so, and I think that is what, or at least one of the
things, that I find agreeable about
working with or thinking about one or another of his "great quotes." I have
appreciated enormously every single quote from Wittgenstein that Robert Paul
has launched here for our perusal.
Just be honest to yourself, again, for a second: Why is it that you never quote
Popper? Why is Wittgenstein more quotable? Think about it.
DM-----------I am extremely wary of people who sneer at the use of important
qualifying words like "merely", [. . . ]
RH------------I am sneering merely/only at the use of such words as "important
qualifying word" because I think there basically are no such things. That's one
of those grammatical fictions you tout and tout and tout and tout [transitive
verb, colloquial, to praise or recommend; boom; puff], but that never changes
its status from anything but what you believe, what you claim. How much
difference does it make to a person interested in learning something from you
that you view your claim to be a "be-all-and-end-all" claim? Aren't you more
concerned about being perceived as a boomer and a puffer?
I mean, give me a break: you even got hot and bothered about my talking about
PI 309, "What is your aim in philosophy?--To shew the fly the way out of the
fly-bottle," along the lines of that being disrespectful of human beings,
treating them like flies or comparing them with flies.
DM----------- [ . . . ] and note they are often hypocritical people who will
jump on you, when it suits them, if a qualifying word is omitted.
RH----------- Au contraire: "if a qualifying word" is included! And
"hypocritical people who will jump on you, when it suits them"? I'm happy to
say I don't have a dog in that race.
DM-----------Aside of such people, such qualifying words are VERY important
because they [ . . . ] allow us to discriminate between VERY logically distinct
claims, that might otherwise get mashed [i.e. implication--by ignorant people
who don't get what I, DM, am saying, although I have said it over and over
again and employed a good number of very important qualifying words to signal
to them the importance of what I was saying and of the distinctions I was
making thereby--RH (emphasis my own)] together. [See above for examples.]
Richard Henninge
University of Mainz
