from central casting
s&dm can go VIVA LAS VEGAS
On Thu, Mar 2, 2017 at 3:54 PM, dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
We are exploring an essay by McGinn on the say-show distinction in Witters
(link provided in previous notes). (This is Marie McGinn, not Colin
It occurs to me that we may also explore truth-conditional semantics,
since McEvoy, in the exegesis quoted below, makes a connection (or
disconnection, rather) between meaning and truth. His final sentence, in
that exegesis, ends with a use of "or" so we may expand on this.
It is assumed, by Griceians, that when we use "or" we mean 'v' (rather
than 'w'): inclusive rather than exclusive. They have different
So now suppose that we have an utterance of the form
"p v q"
which is deemed to be a picture. The picture is correct if
p v q
In the Tarski-jargon adopted by Davidson we would have:
"p v q" is true iff p v q.
So while meaning and truth ARE distinct, perhaps Witters, and thus perhaps
McGinn, are playing with this: where correctness may be said to be related
to issues of meaning and truth. Or not, of course.
The idea would be that the truth-conditions capture the _sense_ of the
'picture'. Anything outside that would fall within the implicature. Thus,
"My wife is in the garden or in the kitchen" (to use an example by Grice)
just MEANS what it _says_. But the use of 'or' may IMPLICATE (or its
utterer implicate by uttering it) that, e.g. he does not know where his
wife is. It may also be postulated that if the kitchen has a door to the
garden, and Grice's wife is lying on that passage, it may also be true that
a reading "My wife is in the garden or in the kitchen, or both" is apt --
Evans/McDowell, "Meaning and Truth", eds. Oxford: Clarendon.
McEvoy quotes from McGinn: "This internal relation expresses itself in the
fact that what is the case if the picture is correct is precisely what the
the correctness of the picture is not something to which we can point
independently of the picture."
McEvoy comments: "The assertion after the colon seems implausible, both as
a matter of its truth and of the correct interpretation of TLP: surely “the
correctness of the picture” depends on whether the relevant state of
affairs exists as depicted - but whether this is so would seem independent
of the picture, and also something we can (and must) decide “independently
of the picture”?
Perhaps MM * means to say* that “*what it would mean* for the picture to
be correct” is not something independent “of the picture” (and/or not
independent of the “internal relation” between the picture and what the
“picture pictures”) - but this is not what she writes. Had she written it,
it might seem to amount to only the banal observation that the ‘meaning’ of
the picture cannot be given “independently of the (meaning of the)
But truth and meaning are surely distinct or at least distinguishable,
both in a correct philosophy and in the TLP; and “correctness” (as in “the
correctness of the picture”) would seem a matter of its truth rather than
its mere meaning e.g. a picture with clear meaning could lack
MM here appears confused - in either her expression or (underlying)
thought, or both.
Trying to discern where my view agrees and disagrees with MM's is not
straightforward, as this above example may indicate. It is not the only
example where MM writes in a way that is either badly expressed or
implausible or both."