[Wittrs] Re: An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 00:19:21 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
> >
> > Stuart writes:
> >
> > "I have also explained, numerous times, that
> > Searle speaks of a constitutive claim as causal and I have said it is THAT
> > sense of causal that I think is at work here."
> >
> > So, when in the third premise Searle states that syntax is _neither_
> > constitutive of _nor_ sufficient for semantics, it's as if we can read him
> > as merely saying the same thing (two noncausality claims for the price of
> > one) even though there is a "neither/nor" there?
> >
>
> The text works both ways (as either/or or this and that). That's the point
> about it being ambiguous.
I disagree. I maintain that you wrongly see the text as working both ways so
you can derive an objection.
>
> > I don't buy that. I also, a fortiori, can't buy the two-for-one sale on
> > both being identity claims. So, six years ago I thought you were having
> > trouble reading English or were flaming, i.e., it just seems obvious,
> > contra Gordon, that "insufficient for" is to be read as "insuff. to cause"
> > and "doesn't constitute" is being used as a type of nonidentity claim.
> >
>
> Note that you think that "insufficient for" works as a "non-causal claim". I
> do, too, of course though, for my part, I think it works both ways (allowing
> both non-identity and non-causal readings).
And I object. Your claim just sounds nuts to me. "Insufficient for" means
"can't DO something to cause x.
>Now Gordon says he sees only a non-identity claim on both sides of the premise
>while Joe avers that he sees something entirely different from either identity
>or causality being invoked by the use of "constitutes".
They are playing a game with you or are in a serious state of confusion.
Benighted or lying, again.
>
> So what we have here are four different people reading this four different
> ways.
I wouldn't conclude that because I don't you three CAN be that retarded. So
lying and playing juvenile word games.
> Doesn't THAT suggest to you that the text is ambiguous?
No.
> And doesn't it also suggest that, if so, then the distinction between the
> causal and identity issues IS being blurred by the way the third premise is
> phrased since, between four people, we can get so little agreement as to the
> way the simple statements contained in the third premise should be
> interpreted?
No. You guys are just retarded to think you can generate such ambiguity and
get away with it.
>
> Doesn't that, alone, support my point that the text is sufficiently ambiguous
> as to be equivocal in its usage?
Absolutely not.
Cheers,
Budd
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
