[lit-ideas] Re: Wittengstein's Criterion
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2014 18:42:45 +0200
I would think that that criterion is the shared knowledge of the context.
If I say "John" on the Lit-Ideas list, there is a pretty good chance that
you know that I mean John McCreery, and not some other John. If we are to
find something inherent in the word "John" that determines that it names
McCreery, then we are being sent 'on a fool's errand', as someone recently
put it.
O.K.
On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 6:32 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My last post today!
>
> : There's no criterion? There's not ONE criterion, but criteria?
>
> ---
>
> Rather, Witters ON 'criterion' (or 'criteria' if you must).
>
> In a message dated 5/9/2014 12:11:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes, among other interesting things:
> "This post may help explain why I do not find what W writes about criteria
> (mentioned in a previous post by JLS) to be at all incompatible with the
> interpretation I am suggesting."
>
> For the record, while I _know_ (or _believe_) that 'criterion' (or perhaps
> better 'criteria') is a 'technicism' (as it were) in Witters's scheme of
> things, it was this below I was having in mind when I brought criteria in:
>
> McEvoy, under "lw" thread:
>
> "To give examples where names
> name is NOT [emphasis Speranza's] to give
> an EXPLANATION [emphasis Speranza's] of the naming-relation
> but merely to illustrate it: what
> the challenge asks is to provide an
> explanation so that the relation is
> captured in language, PERHAPS [emphasis Speranza's] by way
> of some "theory" or "criterion"
> by which we can determine that a
> word is being used as a name and not otherwise."
>
> McEvoy does write 'perhaps', which is good.
>
> 'Criterion' can be difficult.
>
> "Theory" is perhaps a different animal, since a theory introduces what we
> may call a 'theoretical object' (as I think it's called) -- a theoretical
> posit. And meaning (or what we mean) is said to be a matter of 'intuition'
> (as Grice emphasised) -- perhaps even 'analysis' -- rather than 'theory'.
>
> For the record it may do to revise the use of 'ostensive definition' as per
> the Stanford Encyclopedia link -- which concerned the 'meaning' of
> 'metre'.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> REFERENCES:
> Albritton, "On Wittgenstein's use of the Term "Criterion"".
> Wellman, C. "Wittgenstein's Conception of a Criterion"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
