[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein and Grice on sounds
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2011 01:45:57 +0000 (GMT)
--- On Fri, 25/2/11, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>But we have 'defined' sound. Sound is a mechanical wave that results from the
>back-and-forth motion of the 'particles' (air molecules, e.g.) of the medium
>through which the sound is passing.>
This is only one definition. Stephen Fry and the panel on QI addressed this
question and the answer (in Stephen's earpiece) was that sound can be regarded
in a hearer-dependent or hearer-independent way. Mechanical waves that give
rise to perceived sound only become 'sound' when they are perceived as such -
otherwise they are just mechanical waves. That is the alterative definition. To
say this mistakes sound for perceived sound is question-begging and
definitional. As light is not sight so mechanical wavelengths are not sound.
This alternative way of conceiving "sound" is even perhaps reflected in Robert
Paul's conclusion, "Sound is hearer-dependent if one is speaking of sensations;
if one is speaking of sound waves, not (and it is these
with which physicists have to do)."
Donal
Speaking up
London
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
