[lit-ideas]
- From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 23 Aug 2015 10:40:09 +0000
Dear Adam, I drive to cairo today in the p.m.
Let me know whether anything good’s available
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: 23 August 2015 09:58
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: [lit-ideas]
I wanted to note the not often remarked fact that Popper was human, like Grice>
Noted.
D
Awaiting publication of "Adriano's Notebook"
L
On Sunday, 23 August 2015, 8:51, Adriano Palma
<Palma@xxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I wanted to note the not often remarked fact that Popper was human, like Grice
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
[
mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Donal McEvoy
Sent: 23 August 2015 09:49
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: His name was Mudd
Popper never liked 'senses' and found that philosophers who focused on
'senses' were wasting HIS time ("never mind if they waste their own").>
As occasional watchdog, may I point out this is partly false and partly crass.
The false part is that Popper never liked 'senses', with the false implication
that Popper somehow avoided them.
Popper obviously uses language and uses 'senses', and a great deal of his
thought involves what might be regarded as clarification of 'senses' [e.g. the
sense of democracy as 'majority rules' or as a system where we can vote out the
government]. When Popper discriminates between 'senses' there is always an
important substantive dispute at stake, but it is false to imply Popper is
against discriminating against 'senses'.
What Popper did oppose was the idea that 'clarification of meaning' is the
philosopher's be-all and end-all: his view being that it is at best a part
(sometimes an unavoidable part) of advancing substantive theses to be discussed
for their 'truth' (not merely meaning). He also opposed the philosopher's trick
of defending their positions by definitional arguments (a good example might be
how JTB-theorists defend their view of "knowledge" by using their stipulation
as to the meaning of knowledge to reject alternatives). He also thought many
philosophers, especially after the 'linguistic turn', adopted wrongheaded views
of 'meaning' and its role in thought. But to say Popper disliked 'senses' is
false.
The use of "disliked" here is belittling of a serious intellectual
disagreement: we would hardly say Einstein advanced his theories because he
"disliked" Newton's. It is also false to imply that Popper thought
meaning-analysis was always a waste of time: in fact he recognised it might
provide useful service. In addition, substantive metaphysics of the sort Popper
was interested in, can be extracted from work by philosophers who regard
themselves as engaged in 'conceptual analysis': what Popper would sometimes do
is take a point made by a philosopher engaged in conceptual analysis and accept
it as a point that is correct not 'conceptually' but substantively [see his
adoption of a point made separately by Saul Kripke and J.J. Thomson, about how
the mental cannot strictly be 'identical' with the physical: TSAIB].
I would be curious to see the source for the quoted words "never mind if they
waste their own". If used by Popper, I doubt they were used in a context that
justifies how they have been here used by JLS. But, without reasoning
inductively, past experience tells me JLS tends to go quiet when called out to
address the made-up stuff in his posts.
The crass part follows from the above.
D
L
On Saturday, 22 August 2015, 19:50,
"dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
In a message dated 8/22/2015 1:57:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx<
mailto:profdritchie@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
May I suggest some Pillow talk? The capital should indicate I'm not using
the phrase in the usual sense; this is about men.
Oddly, an Oxonian philosopher I follow quite a bit discussed this:
i. His name was Mudd.
ii. His name was mud.
The implicatures, this philosopher says, are different.
Same as, yet different from [never 'than' as Anderson Cooper prefers]
Ritchie's brilliant:
iii. May I suggest some pillow talk?
iv. May I suggest some Pillow talk?
Popper never liked 'senses' and found that philosophers who focused on
'senses' were wasting HIS time ("never mind if they waste their own").
Ritchie:
The capital should indicate I'm
not using the phrase in the
usual sense
"Usual sense" was in fact a keyword in the philosophy of sense of Gottlob
Frege (his Christian name means "love of God"):
This contrasts Frege with the phenomenologists (as referred to in Woody
Allen's "Irrational man" -- "Tomorrow we'll deal with Husserl"), for whom the
noema is NEVER perceived in "the usual sense."
Incidentally, my favourite Lee is Lee Radziwill. She was christened Lee
after James T. Lee, of New York and related to the OTHER Lee (and ultimately
to Adam, according to the Scriptures).
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit
www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html<
http://www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html>
Other related posts:
