[C] [Wittrs] Re: Essences versus Framework versus Causal
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 11 Jan 2010 01:33:28 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "J D" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> SW,
>
> Quick reply to this while I work on reply on the transitional Wittgenstein.
>
> It seems to me that there's a lot in your use of "framework" that has
> affinities with the idea of defining by genera and differentia, rather than
> by necessary and sufficient conditions. At least some of your examples might
> suggest that in offering the framework in which a word finds its use, you are
> offering a generum of which the term may serve as a differentium.
>
> Does this replace essences?
>
> As Wittgenstein notes, any explanation of a rule can be misunderstood. That
> is always a possibility. Such an instruction in the use of a word might work
> in some instances and not in others. I'm not sure what else one could mean
> by asking whether one way of speaking could replace another in this context.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by genera and differentia,
but either that or another system would be type/token.
But certainly the most trendy or popular or newest fashion
would probably follow from Kripke's causal theories, or modal
logic, or whatever it is we are supposed to learn from Naming and
Necessity - which in some circles is after all just seen as a kind
of neo-essentialism anyway.
I'm not sure what a good Wittgensteinian wants to make of any
of these, but there they are.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
