[C] [Wittrs] Re: Games with Logic and Bachelor
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2010 23:36:44 -0800 (PST)
(J)
Not completely happy with a couple of points. Doing it again
ELIGIBILITY TO DATE.
1. First, check this out. This is my illustration of what the family
resemblance of bachelor is: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/austin/ ;(This is a
paper that I am currently working on. I'm trying to graphically depict various
family resemblances).
Here is the idea on this. People toss around "bachelor" for specific reasons.
The language serves certain purposes. When language is used outside of those
purposes, it may become meaningless or problematic in some way. Or when the
social circumstances of the purpose change (over time), it is in need of
adaptation. I contend that the most solid circumstance that people use the term
bachelor is to say something about dating eligibility. It could be eligibility
for dating to marry, but need not be limited by that. The following explains
why.
ELIGIBILITY FOR MARRIAGE
You seem to think that "bachelor" carries with it a kind of chastity grammar
with respect to marriage similar to what "virgin" does for sex. Bachelor as in:
never been touched by marriage. (Note that the Pope has never been so
touched and could therefore fit). Surely marriage did grow out of this
connotation. And surely this use is still meaningful today. But just as
surely, as marriage and dating culture changed, other connotations became
applicable. For example, take a look at this intermediate position: eligible
for ANY marriage: http://www.d.umn.edu/~dcole/bachelor.htm
I think it is problematic to make marriage, 1st or otherwise, the central
purpose. Here's why:
The term "bachelor" originated during a period when marriage played a different
role in culture. You didn't have live-ins, and when you came courting, it
was quickly for a hand in marriage. And if you didn't marry, there was
something wrong with you. The language culture that used the word
"bachelor" under these circumstances is different from ours. It was logical to
use marriage as a barometer for eligibility back then, because marriage was the
goal of eligibility. It no longer is (necessarily). A new vocabulary is upon
us: the age of "serial marriage" is here. As is the age of no marriage. As is
the age of having a child to receive a nice standard of living. It isn't
realistic to think that senses of "bachelor" would not grow out of this change.
(Hence the terms, "eligible bachelor" or "confirmed bachelor").
Note also that being married does not preclude being married again, especially
where the marriage is poor, separated, a joke, for convenience, etc. Some may
find someone in this circumstance "an eligible prospect."
SENSES AND FAMILIES
The critical point here is sense and family. If someone talks with a sharp
boundary with one another, that sense of bachelor may work just fine between
them. But if others talk about THE SAME EXACT FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCE not using a
sharp boundary, whatever they get done in the language game, they are entitled
to. And if these uses only have SOME elements in common with the exemplar, that
is EXACTLY what family resemblance is all about. In fact, these partial border
cases are exactly why people use and tear down fences in language all the time.
And note that it isn't just border cases. One could even offer an "exquisite
sense" or a kind of "extended sense" -- this, too, has cash value. This was
Wittgenstein's yellow "e." If someone can catch the sense -- if they can "get
it" -- its a "goal" (i.e., score) in the language game. That language has this
property is undeniable. And for you to say that if anyone uses "bachelor" that
allows for border cases or extensions, that they are therefore not
creating "correct meaning," is clearly NOT Wittgensteinian. And neither is the
view that the dictionary is prescriptive! (I'm still numb on that one). All
that the dictionary is, is REFERENTIAL. You consult it when making plays. It's
more like a map or guide for usage. It's like the playbook in football. If the
audible works, it works. So does breaking off a pattern. They don't say "the
play doesn't count because it wasn't in the playbook." One could never say,
"meaning taken off the
board because dictionary definition violated." This is the difference between
Russell's view and is EXACTLY what meaning is use is all about.
WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO
The key to this issue is not what you or I say, or even what the dictionary
necessarily says. It is a much simpler thing. It is what people in cultural
life say today that can create successful meaning between one another about the
matter in question. And so the question boils down to something very basic:
what ARE people doing? Do people use "bachelor" in senses where attractive,
rich, legally-married people are behaving like they are not married? That is,
do they use it in egregious cases of marriage? Imagine scoring a child with
Tiger (do you know what that would pay?)
And if people do successfully use it for these cases, does it even matter that
they are speaking humorously or with an idealization in mind? Absolutely not.
The reason why is that there is little FUNCTIONAL DIFFERENCE between a married
man who dates regularly and an unmarried man who does, for the common purposes
that present themselves for the word.
I asked my daughter this question over weekend. Was Tiger a bachelor? Her first
response was "no." But after thinking about it, she said something quite
brilliant: "not technically." She saw that matter had become a technicality.
And she saw this because, like her father, she understood language. That is all
one needs: to see that the boundary is not the meaning, but is only a way to
cut off a marginal case. I bet if gave a multiple choice question that asked
whether Tiger was a "bachelor," and one of the responses was "only
technically," that would win.
And I bet also it would be reasonable in some quarters to hear people say
he was a "de facto bachelor." This, too, is redeemable for cash value.
And the question becomes, then, what do we do with this sentence: "If Tiger is
married, he is not a bachelor." Here's what we do: we say it is true ONLY IN A
SENSE OF TALKING. Because Tiger is border case, and because the VERNACULAR of
"bachelor" could be readily understood if used against him -- and would not be
"wrong" when doing so -- one more thing follows. We really ought NOT to pretend
that logic statements govern this matter. "A logical truth with no
counter-example." Instead, if we were to really do formal logic, we would need
to broadcast the sense of the expression beforehand. We would need to say "If
Tiger was married legally, he could not be a bachelor in the sense of being a
legally unmarried male" (something that is wholeheartedly pointless!).
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:
