[lit-ideas] utter excrement, male bovine excrement : Linguistic Botany

From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 09:56:35 +0000

Why don't they start with an interesting problem?

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 03 April 2015 11:29
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Linguistic Botany

Linguistic Botany is a specific philosophical technique. It starts by
collecting specimens of expressions in a given field, say: metaphysics, or
epistemology. English philosophers start with English expressions, or Greek and
Latin, and proceed.

In a message dated 4/2/2015 11:31:49 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
He did not set out to advocate language change, but to make an epistemological
point. That point is that common usage cannot be trusted as an arbiter of
truth and knowledge. In fact, it is arguable that common usage is not to be
blamed; it was created or evolved for the purpose of facilitating
communication, not of supplying accurate scientific or metaphysical
descriptions. ... At fault are the philosophers who claim that, because we
usually say such or such, this must of necessity be the case.

not of supplying accurate metaphysical descriptions.

I would say 'ontological' descriptions. What Russell calls 'stone-age
metaphysics' (as incorporated in this ordinary language, or 'common use' that
he sees as given a cult by philosophers) is best defined as a stone-age
physics, if you like. It may well be the case that the ordinary-language
philosopher who proceeds via linguistic botanizing is a

PRAGMATIST

at heart. What is true is not at stake, but what is useful. And talk of
'things', for example, rather than subatomic particles, is useful and thus
preferable, when engaged in the 'ontological description' that the language you
use commits you with, is a respectable philosophical enterprise.

In another passage Russell calls about the 'silly things silly people say'.
But surely, 'silly' as applied to 'people', is hyperbolic. I hope Russell felt
SILLY at some point in his life. It would be boring otherwise. Plus, 'silly'
literally means 'blessed'. When one considers Urmson's Parentheticals, also,
and his analysis of "I believe" in utterances (prefacing position, "I believe
it's raining", middle position, "It is, I believe, raining", or final "It's
raining, I believe") he is making a philosophical point, and there is nothing
silly about any of these three things that people say. What a clown say, in a
comedy skit, is a silly thing, but hardly the rich collectabillia which is the
product of the philosopher after he has engaged in some linguistic botanising.

Cheers,

Speranza

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest
on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

[lit-ideas] utter excrement, male bovine excrement : Linguistic Botany

Other related posts: