[C] [Wittrs] Re: Essences versus Framework
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2010 16:52:51 -0800 (PST)
... is a love seat a couch or a chair?
Let's say I took the position that a love seat was a couch, even if it was
called a "love chair" (which they sometimes are). The point being that the
expression "love seat" or "love chair" involves couch-grammar. The conditions
of assertabilty are the same for each. What I would be saying is that the logic
of family resemblance seems to say that love seats are more familial to couch
than chair. In other words, even though there is family resemblance, there are
still BETTER families.
Several questions.
1. Am I wrong?
2. Is the position Wittgensteininan?
(The point isn't to say that calling it a love chair is wrong; the point is
only that such expressions need conjugated. And when we do conjugate them, they
express couch grammar, no matter what we say about it. And so if someone said
love couch till they were blue in the face, they still would only be saying, in
effect, couch-thingy).
Pics:
standard love seat:
http://www.thefurniture.com/store/images/AE/livingroom/passion/7580red_love.jpg
things that make language hell or fun, depending on your perspective:
http://www.windsorchair.co.uk/loveseat.jpg ; (this is called a love seat. It
clearly is a hybrid of sorts. In my example, I don't mean this one. This is
just for fun. Use the above example).
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
