[lit-ideas] final note
- From: palma@xxxxxxxx
- To: joerg benesch <andreas@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>, jls@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx, joerg benesch <jgruel@xxxxxxxxxx>, John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>, John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, Paul Stone <pastone@xxxxxxxxx>, Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>, Ursula Stange <Ursula@xxxxxxxxxx>, wokshevs@xxxxxx, wokshevs@xxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2007 19:04:29 -0500 (EST)
Yes I read their work and I find utterly irrelevant. It seems to me that
it is precisely Herr Wittgenstein's behaviourism that has been trounced
(not by some academic, but by reality.)
In any event I respect your view that seems to be that whatever
Wittgenstein says is correct.
I invite you to consider the following, very easy, rule.
In English there is no bar to repetition (why? you can certainly say " I
think that that writer from Switzerland is an interesting anarchist"
note THAT THAT is kosher by anybody's standards, I do not know by yours,
but let me know because I would find it interesting to know if you find
the sentence non-parseable or even queer semantically, It does not seems
thus to me.)
Consider the following rule:
there is an absoluet bar against the repetition of the def-art
you can*not* say "I think that the the dog is a ridgeback" [this is what
is usually marked with a "*" for non-acceptable in English.
Now, this is a rule that I surmise [let me know if someone says
otherwise, I'd again truly appreciate your help] has no public
expression in anything, it is not taught, explained (in fact it isn't
easy to explain at all) or otherwise "trounced", "discredited" by a
number of Wittgensteinian philosophers.
I'd appreciate your view on the matter.
As for Hacker and Baker they make it very clear that they are engaged in
a philosophical enterprise that has to do with somehting very far frm
language (which may be very interesting for those who care about
understanding what was wrong with Wittgenstein "rejection" of his own
work in Tlp)
I have been too long and I suggest after your reply, this "thread" as it
is often called, should stop.
Best regards
palma a
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
> I must have inadvertently given "palma" the wrong impression. Chomsky's
> original
> position on rules, as per *Cartesian Linguistics* and other works, fell afoul
> of
> Wittgenstein's painstaking analyses of the social and public dimension of
> rules
> in the *PI* and the *Blue* and *Brown* Books.
>
> The idea of rules being innate or constitutive of the "deep structure" of the
> mind/brain or some Language Acquisition Device was, I believe, thoroughly
> trounced and discredited by a number of Wittgensteinian philosophers. Most
> notably by Baker and Hacker in their excellent *Language: sense and nonsense*.
> My linguist friends inform me that Chomsky has recently recanted on any
> version
> of a thesis on a universal, deep rule-governed grammar or structure of the
> mind.
>
> Do take a look at Baker and Hacker's text, and let us know what you think.
>
> Walter O.
> MUN
>
>
>
> Quoting palma@xxxxxxxx:
>
> > Certainly. I would be appreciative if you produce a reference, a source,
> > or what grounds your claim that Chomsky holds the view that rules are
> > public.
> > I am here assuming you talk about linguistic rules.
> > The reason this is puzzling is that they are not public at all (in fact
> > it is rather a pain in several parts of the body and of the mind to find
> > out what they are, e.g. rules of c-government are, in my view, still
> > poorly understood)
> >
> >
> > bets regards and happy new year to the entire list-ship and yourself
> >
> > On
> > Wed, 26 Dec 2007 wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > > No, I wouldn't mind "just explaining" at all. But I must say I am equally
> > as
> > > mildly puzzled as the content and tone of your message conveys.
> > >
> > > Could the tone in which a speech act is expressed actually contribute to
> > its
> > > semantic/locutionary content? Is this not a matter of the "music" of the
> > > question? "Would you mind just explaining ..." This speech act should be
> > > in
> > a
> > > teacher's guide to the structure and dynamics of questioning. Imagine a
> > teacher
> > > were to say this subsequent to a student's expression of her observations
> > or
> > > criticisms.
> > >
> > > Think of the myriad ways in which a student can ask a question. Essential
> > here
> > > is the task of identifying the motive behind the question and the purpose
> > in
> > > asking it. It is only after the teacher has deconstructed the "way" of the
> > > question that a pedagogically effective answer can be designed.)
> > >
> > >
> > > But I digress, to be sure. I'm not very clear on what it is precisely you
> > are
> > > asking. Could you, perhaps, provide some background to your query which
> > would
> > > help to situate the direction and ensure the relevance of my reply?
> > >
> > > Walter O.
> > > MUN
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Quoting palma@xxxxxxxx:
> > >
> > > > I am midly puzzled. would you mind just explaining (or else provide
> > > > sources) fro your claim that "even Chomsky concurs" (finally etc.)
> > > > to what are you making reference?
> > > > thank you
> > > >
> > > > palma a
> > > >
> > > > On Wed,
> > > > 26 Dec 2007 wokshevs@xxxxxx wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Turkey and nog may well instill (and even distill) the idea that
> > > > dictionaries
> > > > > are of some philosophical worth, but one would hope that a restful
> > night's
> > > > > sleep would succeed in disabusing one of that idea.
> > > > >
> > > > > Clearly, no discipline or paradigm of disciplinary research owns the
> > > > copyright
> > > > > to the concept of validity. Each sense possesses its own
> > > > disciplinary-specific
> > > > > criteria of "validity." I submit, however, that the logical sense of
> > > > validity
> > > > > can legitimately be said to be foundational, i.e. possess priority
> > over
> > > > > "procedural" senses, in that all other versions of the concept cited
> > by
> > > > John
> > > > > are governed by the specifically logical norms of validity for the
> > > > > intelligibility and cogency of claims made. The converse cannot
> > > > > validly
> > be
> > > > > maintained.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regarding the quotation from W: I'm not clear on the points John McC
> > wishes
> > > > to
> > > > > extract from these remarks and how they are relevant to the claims he
> > > > makes.
> > > > > Rules are public and social. (Even Chomsky now concurs, finally.)
> > > > Typically, we
> > > > > each know when we're (not) abiding by a rule and when others are (are
> > not).
> > > > If
> > > > > this were false, then the issuance of traffic tickets would be
> > seriously
> > > > > imperilled. W. understood that, surely. (What is the specific view
> > > > > that
> > W
> > > > is
> > > > > addressing in this passage?)
> > > > >
> > > > > Walter O.
> > > > > Duck "Orawnge" Heaven
> > > > > St. John's, NL
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Quoting John McCreery <john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > > >
> > > > > > A Google search for "define: Valid" yields the following result.
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Definitions of *valid* on the Web:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - well grounded in logic or truth or having legal force; "a valid
> > > > > > inference"; "a valid argument"; "a valid contract"; "a valid
> > license"
> > > > > > - still legally acceptable; "the license is still valid"
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=0&oi=define&q=http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn%3Fs%3Dvalid&usg=AFQjCNG8JbP6yppNRxqupqXtkvVmOpzUSw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - In logic, the form of an argument is valid precisely if it
> > cannot
> > > > > > lead from true premises to a false conclusion. An argument is
> > > > > > said
> > to
> > > > be
> > > > > > valid if, in every model in which all premises are true, the
> > > > conclusion
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > true. ...
> > > > > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=2&oi=define&q=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valid&usg=AFQjCNE4N8cW_r3wrOtnL6DYuOx079Lbrg>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Legally binding; authorized.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.titlecorockies.com/dictionary_v.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=3&oi=define&q=http://www.titlecorockies.com/dictionary_v.htm&usg=AFQjCNE8kGs0VeC3KBMHhYpqacOw2dWkrg>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Time at which the weather data was received. In the case of a
> > > > > > forecast, time at which the forecast applies.
> > > > > > www.intellicast.com/Help/Glossary.aspx
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=4&oi=define&q=http://www.intellicast.com/Help/Glossary.aspx&usg=AFQjCNFiQOkTb_xRqJ3dVgJw4FOKlfP1rw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Of taxonomic names and epithets: Published in accordance with
> > > > > > several articles of the Code of Nomenclature; such names may be
> > > > > > legitimate
> > > > > > or illegitimate. (22)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.plantpath.cornell.edu/glossary/Defs_V.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=5&oi=define&q=http://www.plantpath.cornell.edu/glossary/Defs_V.htm&usg=AFQjCNHAHPhk5RT_lWFVKpBk57eF1fJ5fw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Certificate of Insurance valid
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> apps01.metrokc.gov/www6/ddes/scripts/perminfo.cfm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=6&oi=define&q=http://apps01.metrokc.gov/www6/ddes/scripts/perminfo.cfm%3Frpt%3D2&usg=AFQjCNFAmZyqNC3hkOZT5SuFikbuU-Xy4w>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - An XML document that is verified correct against a DTD or
> > schema.
> > > > > > Create a Valid XML Document valid glossary entry
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> webdesign.about.com/library/weekly/aa070102a.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=7&oi=define&q=http://webdesign.about.com/library/weekly/aa070102a.htm&usg=AFQjCNFDBjCV2_z4O6aEgF9q55lrYPPOGA>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Based on proper procedures, a valid approach will lead to the
> > > > > > correct solution of a problem.
> > > > > > www.numbernut.com/glossary/v.shtml
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=8&oi=define&q=http://www.numbernut.com/glossary/v.shtml&usg=AFQjCNH9HyMzcd4PUzbi_A6Iw13OEBdBkw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Produces or relates to the intended results or goal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.nmlites.org/standards/language/glossary.html<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=9&oi=define&q=http://www.nmlites.org/standards/language/glossary.html&usg=AFQjCNE2C2f3Pr2FsYJ3v20egWX4JcU6mQ>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A valid proof (or statement) is one in which all the arguments
> > > > > > leading up to it are correct within the logie of the system being
> > > > used.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> ddi.cs.uni-potsdam.de/Lehre/TuringLectures/MathNotions.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=10&oi=define&q=http://ddi.cs.uni-potsdam.de/Lehre/TuringLectures/MathNotions.htm&usg=AFQjCNHWjiIO7orUx2dwslUXjU4ffXy3rw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Being complete, accurate and reasonable 113 .
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.usq.edu.au/planstats/Docs/GlossaryTerms.doc<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=11&oi=define&q=http://www.usq.edu.au/planstats/Docs/GlossaryTerms.doc&usg=AFQjCNE_ig2MsQGrSmCWxrjD13-TXyNCLQ>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - a condition that is legally sufficient; that will be upheld by
> > the
> > > > > > courts.
> > > > > > www.tdsf.com/foregloss.htm
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> <http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=12&oi=define&q=http://www.tdsf.com/foregloss.htm&usg=AFQjCNHdodCyHbo8gtlBIzms_p2AUauWMg>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Having legal force. This means that if a property title is
> > valid
> > > > > > then it is effective or binding by law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.canequity.com/mortgage-resources/<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=13&oi=define&q=http://www.canequity.com/mortgage-resources/%3Fv%2BD&usg=AFQjCNHtaal2MCvsOwdvIyr8Fb9p8xkESA>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Term of appraisal applying to arguments. An argument is valid
> > if
> > > > the
> > > > > > truth of the premise(s) really does warrant us in asserting the
> > truth
> > > > of
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > conclusion. ...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=14&oi=define&q=http://www.abdn.ac.uk/philosophy/guide/glossary.shtml&usg=AFQjCNF2bAusgvclwAzzKl4qYx-Fwl0Yhg>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - "valid" means issued in accordance with the applicable law or
> > > > > > validated under section 97.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.canlii.org/ca/sta/b-1.01/sec81.html<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=15&oi=define&q=http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/b-1.01/sec81.html&usg=AFQjCNFhXLUy5ik2dhyz1sAarbvyMtMLfA>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Research is valid if it represents the world as it really is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.barrycomp.com/bhs/guide/key_terms.html<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=16&oi=define&q=http://www.barrycomp.com/bhs/guide/key_terms.html&usg=AFQjCNFgY-9dtvNerRjFj7FJjP_jW8emuQ>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - A binding situation that is authorized and enforceable by law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> centapoint.com/Support/Glossary_Pages/V_Page.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=17&oi=define&q=http://centapoint.com/Support/Glossary_Pages/V_Page.htm&usg=AFQjCNEq933DTbGYRa25WEQBAcGlAHVLQQ>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - The Quotation is valid for 30 days only.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.a1-plating.co.uk/index_files/Page707.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=18&oi=define&q=http://www.a1-plating.co.uk/index_files/Page707.htm&usg=AFQjCNHG5X9QW2b6OqUTLN1NHOpZ_iFpvw>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - Having force or binding force; legally sufficient and
> > > > > > authorized
> > by
> > > > > > law.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.realestatemanitoba.com/glossary.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=19&oi=define&q=http://www.realestatemanitoba.com/glossary.htm&usg=AFQjCNGgmaKOHsawbP7gEFbDgzh8qMjaRg>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > - In logic, the term used to indicate that the conclusion follows
> > > > > > deductively and necessarily from the propositions of an argument,
> > > > > > although
> > > > > > the conclusion may not be true. A property of arguments: being
> > such
> > > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > truth of the premises guarantees or necessitates the truth of the
> > > > > > conclusion.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> www.rodsmith.org.uk/philosophy%20glossary/philosophy%20glossaryU-Z.htm<http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&start=20&oi=define&q=http://www.rodsmith.org.uk/philosophy%2520glossary/philosophy%2520glossaryU-Z.htm&usg=AFQjCNFV6NJ44mKuRK_2sQQpEa3CCBP-uA>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----------------
> > > > > > As Robert Paul points out logic provides an exceptionally clear and
> > > > definite
> > > > > > description of validity, which appears in both the third and the
> > > > > > last
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > > > definitions to which Google points us.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One can, of course, simply assert that the logical definition of
> > validity
> > > > is
> > > > > > the only one that counts and, going further, regard this definition
> > of
> > > > > > validity as an absolute dividing line between logic and the
> > illogical.
> > > > This
> > > > > > is, for example, the force as I read them of palma's remarks in re
> > > > > > Bourdieu.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Alternatively, we might begin by observing that the majority of
> > these
> > > > > > definitions evoke the notion that validity is, in essence, a
> > procedural
> > > > > > issue. There exists a procedure P, governed by a set of rules {r1,
> > > > r2....},
> > > > > > such that for a given set of initial conditions {c1, c2....}, there
> > is
> > > > some
> > > > > > outcome that satisfies the rules in question. The use of the
> > procedure
> > > > may
> > > > > > then be described as valid. This model applies equally to logic and
> > to
> > > > the
> > > > > > other legal and scientific usages mentioned in our list.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So long as we speak hypothetically, we evade, however, the problems
> > that
> > > > > > confront interpretations or explanations in terms of rules in
> > particular
> > > > > > (concrete? empirical?) situations--the problems identified by
> > > > Wittgenstein
> > > > > > in the following passage from _Philosophical Investigations_ cited
> > by
> > > > > > Bourdieu in _The Logic of Practice_:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "What do I call 'the rule by which he proceeds'??The hypothesis that
> > > > > > satisfactorily describes his use of words, which we observe; or the
> > rule
> > > > > > which he looks up when he uses signs; or the one which he gives us
> > in
> > > > reply
> > > > > > when we ask what his rule is? --But if observation does not enable
> > > > > > us
> > to
> > > > see
> > > > > > any clear rule, and the question brings none to light?--For he did
> > > > indeed
> > > > > > give me a definition when I asked him what he understood by 'N', but
> > he
> > > > was
> > > > > > prepared to withdraw and alter it. So how am I to determine the rule
> > > > > > according to which he is playing? He does not know it himself. --
> > > > > > Or,
> > to
> > > > ask
> > > > > > a better question: What meaning is the expression 'the rule by which
> > he
> > > > > > proceeds' supposed to have left to it here?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we can neither infer the rules from our own observations or trust
> > what
> > > > we
> > > > > > are told are the rules, what do we do then?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > John (pleasantly muddled by turkey and nog as Christmas Day moves
> > toward
> > > > > > midnight in Japan)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > John McCreery
> > > > > > The Word Works, Ltd., Yokohama, JAPAN
> > > > > > Tel. +81-45-314-9324
> > > > > > http://www.wordworks.jp/
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > > > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > off address: #201 West Building, Philosophy, Duke University
> > > > box 90743, Durham, NC 27708
> > > > home ph#: [1] 9196881856
> > > > cellph#: [1[] 9195997065 (voicemail is available on said numbers)
> > > > email palma@xxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> > > > digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > off address: #201 West Building, Philosophy, Duke University
> > box 90743, Durham, NC 27708
> > home ph#: [1] 9196881856
> > cellph#: [1[] 9195997065 (voicemail is available on said numbers)
> > email palma@xxxxxxxx
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
off address: #201 West Building, Philosophy, Duke University
box 90743, Durham, NC 27708
home ph#: [1] 9196881856
cellph#: [1[] 9195997065 (voicemail is available on said numbers)
email palma@xxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
