-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 13 December 2015 22:33
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Griceian Chickens
D. Ritchie writes was mentioning that in Glasgow, a female is referred to as a
'hen', and was wondering if "what Scottish chickens might be named if I owned
some." "[T]he right idea—if symmetry is abroad in the world-- [would be for
[Scottish female] chickens to be called "human"?]. Ritchie adds:
"As a god, I might take that to be blasphemy. Or make an exception."
Well, I believe Lionpainter (Chickenpainter) may agree with me on this that
it's best to take a Xenophanic approach to the 'reverse' implicature Ritchie
detected in Glasgow. For Xenophanes said, accompanying himself to the
lyre:
"Mortals suppose that gods are born,
wear their own clothes and have a voice and body.
Thracians that theirs are blue-eyed and red-haired.
But if horses or oxen or lions had hands or could draw with their hands and
accomplish such works as men horses would draw the figures of the gods as
similar to horses and the oxen as similar to oxen and they would make the
bodies of the sort which each of them had."
Xenophanes did not say it, but implicated it, that chickens would draw the
figures of the gods as similar to chickens. In which case it might *not* be
blasphemous, and we may not need one of those exceptions beloved by H. L.
A. Hart. -- Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
