[lit-ideas] Re: War Is War
- From: Mike Geary <jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 02:28:08 -0500
No, no, no, no. Sheesh, it's embarrassing having to correct a linguistic
philosopher about the workings of language, but I have no choice.
JL: "Since I detect no pattern, it is difficult for me to follow Geary's
point:"
I'm a stranger to all your algebraic looking symbols for speech, but I think
you know what I mean. Positing a subject (a word) and using the same word
as the predicated about the subject -- that's a tautology only if the
meaning of the predicate is identical to the subject. I submit that very
rarely ever happens in human speech. I'm quite sure your linguistic
sophistication can work through this. "A rose is rose is a rose is a rose"
is not a tri-tautology. Each "rose" carries with it a philosophical
universe of it's own. If you don't believe me go ask Alice. If I say: "I am
me." It doesn't mean I'm the person standing in from of you, it could mean
many things depending on the circumstances in which it was uttered -- I'm
me! I'm not.....(whatever, whoever) you think I am or should be or need me
to be. I'm just me.
Anyhowsomever, I have to get up in 6 hours and amateur philosophizing won't
pay the rent. Work it out among yourselves.
Good night and goodness to all.
Mike Geary
Memphis
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 12:43 AM, <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> In a message dated 5/27/2010 2:08:00 A.M., jejunejesuit.geary2@xxxxxxxxx
> writes:
> The first use of "boys" refers to young males, the second use of "boys"
> refers to all the attributes associated with young males. It's more like
> saying, "What did you expect? He's a stupid guy for Christsake."
> It seems to me that most such tautologies follow that pattern: War is war.
> ----
> Since I detect no pattern, it is difficult for me to follow Geary's point:
> BOYS WILL BE BOYS.
> Strictly, as he notes, it's "Boys ARE Boys" which is tautologous.
> ---- In Geary's reading, this becomes
>
> The Subject (S) is The Subject (S)
>
> S is S
>
> A BOY is A BOY
>
> Geray:
> "The first use of "boys" refers to young males, the second use of "boys"
> refers to all the attributes associated with young males."
>
> So, with
>
> WAR IS WAR
>
> "The first use of 'war' refers to war. The second use of 'war' refers to
> all attributes associated with war."
>
> "It's more like saying, "What did you expect? He's a stupid guy for
> Christsake.""
>
> Why? Surely it's more LIKE saying. Surely it is NOT saying, "What did you
> expect? He is a stupid guy for Christake"
>
> War is war ====> What did you expect? It's a stupid ???? for Christsake
>
> I disagree.
>
> ---------- He's gone and done it again.
> --------------- "Boys will be boys, I told you"
>
> ---- "He killed the whole population of the village. And he was never
> ordered. He volunteered."
> --------- "War is war"
>
> The implicature of "War is war" INVOLVES, "What did you expect?" But I'm
> less sure about the "For Christsake" or 'stupid'.
> (Cfr. "It's the economy, stupid").
> ---
>
> "War is war" only has ONE implicature: "Don't criticise it". It can NEVER
> be uttered to condemn war. Only to praise it.
>
> Grice compares it with
>
> "Women are women"
>
> which can be used "in a praising or condemning tone".
>
> ---- "the intonation, in this case, yielding what type of implicature is
> intended by the utterer".
>
> JLS
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
