[lit-ideas] Re: Wittgenstein's Moses
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2014 08:10:50 -0400 (EDT)
We are discussing What Is Said And What Is Shown.
In a message dated 5/14/2014 2:02:18 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
_donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxx.uk_ (mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx) asks as to
consider
an utterance:
"No, it's not. It's not. It's really not." -- and writes:
"This construction," McEvoy notes, "may be an example ... of one
[construction] that SHOWS its SENSE and where it would MISS that SENSE to
interpret
it merely as a set of "otiose" repetitions. We may SAY the sense it SHOWS
is, in part, one where writing imitates a common aspect of speech, where
speech sometimes shows this kind of repetitious emphasis."
Good. Actually, perhaps we may not *just* SAY that the sense it shows is,
in part, one where writing imitates a common aspect of speech, but we may
also *SHOW* _that_.
On the other hand, in a message dated 5/14/2014 2:17:24 A.M. Eastern
Daylight Time, palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx asks us to consider the utterance:
Mao Tse Tung was called "Mao Tse Tung".
--- and writes:
"As predicted by Kripke it is not very trifling, since it is false."
This may be a good opportunity to check with Wikipedia. Wikipedia notes
that the boy was indeed baptised Mao Zedong.
Mao Zedong was born on December 26, 1893 in the rural village of
Shaoshanchong in Shaoshan.
His father had the same first name, and was called "Mao Yichang."
In later years, Mao Zedong will describe his father ("Mao Wichang") as a
stern disciplinarian, punishing his four children — Mao Zedong had two
brothers, Mao Zemin and Mao Zetan, and an adopted girl, Zejian — for perceived
wrongdoings, sometimes by beating them."
The references provided by Wikipedia include:
Schram, Stuart (1966). Mao Tse-Tung. London: Simon & Schuster. ISBN
978-0-14-020840-5.
"Biography" (2005). Mao Tse Tung: China's Peasant Emperor (Television
production). A&E Network. ASIN B000AABKXG. Retrieved January 18, 2013.
So I would re-take the utterance:
i. Mao Tse Tung was called "Mao Tse Tung".
To be expanded to read:
ii. Mao Tse Tung was called "Mao Tse Tung" by Stuart Schram (in his
biography published by Simon & Schuster).
Palma may object and may want to propose as a more correct replacement for
(ii):
iii. Mao Zedong was called, wrongly, "Mao Tse Tung" by Stuart Schram (in
his biography of Mao Zedong -- entitled "Mao Tse Tung", published by Simon
and Schuster).
Since Schram in fact uses "Mao Tse-Tung", with a hyphen, it may be best to
use the "BIOGRAPHY" example:
iv. Mao Tse Tung was called "Mao Tse" Tung" by the producers of the
BIOGRAPHY television production.
Re-interpreted, correctly, by Palma, to read:
v. Mao Zedong was called, wrongly, "Mao Tse Tung" by the producers of the
BIOGRAPHY television production.
This may apply to Wittgenstein's Moses, too.
Witters is not too sure what 'predicate' that applies to "Moses" is best
used to _show_ how we _name_ Moses.
He NEVER mentions that
vi. Moses was called "Moses".
which alla Palma, would be wrong, since, as Wikipedia tells us,
vii. Moses was called "מֹשֶׁה".
By the same token, to replace Kripke's piece of brilliant prose:
"Actually sentences like 'Socrates is called "Socrates"' [and mutatis
mutandis, 'Moses is called "Moses"] are very interesting and one can
spend,
strange as it may seem, hours talking about their analysis. I actually
did,
once, do that. I won't do that, however, on this occasion. (See how high
the
seas of language can rise. And at the lowest points too.)"
But in fact, Palma would argue that IT IS FALSE that
viii. Socrates was called "Socrates".
Rather, checking with Wikipedia, we have
ix. Socrates was called "Σωκράτης".
Cheers,
Speranza
In Section 79 of Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein writes: "If
one says
i. Moses did not exist.
this may MEAN various things."
"It may mean:
ii. The Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from
Egypt.
——or it may mean that
iii. The Israelite's leader was NOT called Moses
——-or it may mean that
iv. There cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible
relates of Moses
——or it may mean
v. etc. etc.
"We may say, following Russell: the NAME "Moses" can be defined by means
of various descriptions." "For example, as
vi. "Moses" names the man who led the Israelites through the wilderness.
vii. "Moses" names the man who lived at that time and place and was then
called 'Moses'.
viii. "Moses" names the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile by
Pharaoh's daughter.
and so on. "And according as we assume one definition or another the
proposition, our
original utterance
i. Moses did not exist.
acquires a different SENSE, and so does every other proposition about
Moses." "And if we are told, in general
ib. "N did not exist"
we do ask: "What do you mean? Do you want to say . . . . . . or . . . .
. . etc.?" "When I make a statement about Moses,— am I always ready to
substitute some one of these descriptions for "Moses"?" "I shall perhaps
say as follows." "By "Moses" I understand the man who did what the Bible
relates of Moses,
or at any rate a good deal of it." "But how much?" "Have I decided how
much must be proved false for me to give up my proposition as false?" "Has
the NAME "Moses" got a fixed and unequivocal use for me in all
possible cases? "Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a whole
series of props inreadiness, and am ready to lean on one if another should
be taken from under me and vice versa?"
These are deep questions.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
