[lit-ideas] not explain
- From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2015 01:12:23 +0000
There is, I am afraid in the list or some members a pernicious idea that
philosophy is like reading novels, hence can always read, as many times as one
sees fit, joyce or kafka.
Philosophy while not being a literary form, does have a chore of problems that
do not go away, despite the hosts of imbeciles (derrida hegel Heidegger etc.)
who show that it “died” that it was dead all along, that it will die once one
reads some demented cretin (baudrillard?). the problems who do not go away are
hard even to formulate (it took 300 years to see why kant was wrong on
arithmetics, it was faster on geometry.
I venture to guess that it one of the effect of the heterogenesis in getting
people who do not have any understanding of a problem, rather they are fixated
by showing that X (replace with grice, popper, buttmann, Heidegger, etc. ) are
to be seen as texts, hence to be exegetically praised. The technique was
invented on the model of religious philology (see e.g. gadamer and similarities
with vattimo, and a few others)
It does not hurt anybody, it does annoy someone who wanted to learn something
rather than being told that already X (Wittgenstein? Schelling?) already did
show that there is nothing to change etc.
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: 25 April 2015 03:00
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: What cannot be explained do not explain
As I read this assessment, I find myself wondering, do we really know what we
are talking about? Have we read any philosophy written in the last half century?
*That can be answered in the affirmative. I will not comment on the question as
the fact that it was sent from an Ipad probably explains why it was so crudely
formulated.
O.K.
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:57 AM, palma
<palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:palmaadriano@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
read kripke instead of popper, for starters
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 12:46 AM, John McCreery
<john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:john.mccreery@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
As I read this assessment, I find myself wondering, do we really know what we
are talking about? Have we read any philosophy written in the last half
century? As we run around in familiar circles, from Wittgenstein to Grice to
Popper and back again, could it be that we are... anachronisms?
I am moved to ask this question not by any conviction that I know what's going
on in philosophy these days. I don't. It is stimulated instead by a chance
remark in which a philosopher of social science suggests that philosophers
might play a role analogous to that they now play in cognitive science. There,
it appears, philosophers have given up their traditional role as universal
scold and perform a useful function more like that of honeybees. They flit back
and forth between the computer programmers, the mathematicians, the
neuroscientists, etc., noting questions of general interest that transcend
disciplinary boundaries and offering thoughts that, while never answers
themselves, may stimulate fresh thinking and move those with technical
expertise to new advances.
John
Sent from my iPad
On 2015/04/25, at 3:10, Omar Kusturica
<omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Of course, it may be argued that the business of philosophers is to explain
things that are, or appear to be, inexplicable. When philosophers actually
manage to explain something, or at least to indicate the manner in which it
could be explained, then it becomes the business of the scientists and ceases
to be the concern of philosophers. But since the time philosophy got fixated on
conceptual analysis, such occurences have been rare.
O.K.
On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 5:57 PM, Donal McEvoy
<donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Never explain, never complain.>
This reminds me: did JLS ever tell us whether that long example he gave about
Christmas and weather and something was drawn from Wodehouse or was his own?
This could be explained, and the lack of explanation complained about. So never
say never.
D
On Thursday, 23 April 2015, 11:54,
"dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Never explain, never complain.
In a message dated 4/23/2015 3:06:06 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx<
mailto:donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> quotes line 15 from
Nissim Ezekiel, "There is a place to
which I often go"
What cannot be explained, do not explain.>
and asks:
How do we know what "cannot be explained" unless we first try to explain
it?
First note the comma (There was an essay on this in a recent book review
supplement of the New York Times -- Let us consider the comma, I think the
title went):
I have omitted the comma in the subject line. Ezekiel doesn't. I think the
comma makes for a complicated syntactic parsing, whereas
i. What cannot be explained do not explain.
does not. (i) is, even, without the "!", an imperative:
ii. Do NOT explain what can NOT be explained.
McEvoy asks:
How do we know what "cannot be explained" unless we first try to explain
it?
Here, a distinction which Grice calls 'fine' and which he makes is best
made to apply. It's what Grice calls the reason-rhyme distinction.
Note that this is line 15. And it ends in the rhyme, '/ein/. Ezekiel had
played with that ending in line 11 already, and 12:
11 But residues of meaning still remain,
12 As darkest myths meander through the pain
13 Towards a final formula of light.
14 I, too, reject this clarity of sight.
15 What cannot be explained, do not explain.
Note there is a stop, even if not a full stop (the use of 'stop' here is
taken from the highway code), after 'sight', so that we may consider that
there is a change of 'reason', but since there is no change of 'rhyme' -- the
/ein/ of 'remain', 'pain', and 'explain', we may assume that Ezekiel is
'staying on topic'. Now, what is the topic? There is the paradoxical side to
it that McEvoy points to:
How do we know what "cannot be explained" unless we first try to explain
it?
But this can be easily taken as a rhetorical question even if it ain't. For
nobody every said that we 'do' 'know'. So the implicature can be
cancelled, as per rhetorical questions:
-- We don't. I.e. we do NOT know that what cannot be explained we ought not
to explain.
Cfr. Is the Pope Catholic? (Geary's answer to this rhetorical question is
the subject of a mini-poetical essay)
So it's best to deal with Ezekiel's utterer's meaning in terms of the full
stanza
But residues of meaning still remain,
As darkest myths meander through the pain
Towards a final formula of light.
I, too, reject this clarity of sight.
What cannot be explained, do not explain.
Starting a stanza (or a conversation, or a sentence, as a matter of fact),
as Chomsky says in "Syntactic Structures" is rude. Grice's example is "She
was poor but she was poor." "To begin a conversational contribution with
"But she was poor" can only mesmerise your interlocutor."
The phrase 'residues of meaning' is an obvious reference to Schiffer, a
tutee of Strawson at Magdalen, and his second book "Remants of meaning" (the
book's cover jacket features a painting also called "Remnants of meaning"
and painted on commission). His first book was "Meaning".
While the rhyme /ein/ dominates the stanza, there's the 'light' and the
'sight', third and fourth lines. Ezekiel gives a 'from--to' formula, as it
were. We go, thru the 'pain', towards the 'light'. I don't think he gives a
reason why he rejects this clarify of sight. It must be an obvious reference
to D. Lewis, who once criticised Grice for being too clear: "Clarity is not
enough". One of Grice's conversational maxims is "be clear" -- the
Desideratum of Clarity. He later changed that to "perspicuity" (as 'being
clearer'
in terms of "its etymological roots".
It's only THEN that Ezekiel concludes alla Witters:
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
Wovon man nicht sprechen kann, darüber muss man schweigen.
Indeed, there is a tercetto for this:
WITTERS, on a sunny Cambridge afternoon: Wovon man nicht sprechen kann,
darüber muss man schweigen.
LORD RUSSELL: Witters, can you speak ENGLISH when with Englishmen? I think
it's otherwise VERY RUDE.
Plumpton Ramsey (trying to mediate). He Kant. In any case, it's clear
enough: whereof one cannot speak thereof one must be silent.
LORD RUSSELL (hardly convinced, and echoing McEvoy, "How do we know what
"cannot be explained" unless we first try to explain it?"): But how do we
know whereof one cannot speak unless we first try to whereof speak?
RAMSEY: Trust me, Bertie [and pointing to WITTERS]: he tried (implicature:
and failed).
WITTERS (as he leaves the pair in puzzlement). But you can always whistle
it along! (He leaves the scene in a whistle).
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>
--
palma, etheKwini, KZN
palma
cell phone is 0762362391
*only when in Europe*:
inst. J. Nicod
29 rue d'Ulm
f-75005 paris france
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] not explain - Adriano Palma
