[Wittrs] Re: Games with Logic and Bachelor
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Feb 2010 17:36:08 -0800 (PST)
(J)
... couple of things. Let me thank you for "operational definition." Will look
that up. Also, thanks for reminding me about the connotation of words -- surely
that is important. Now let me violently disagree ...
1. I can't place much stock on the idea that when one says "bachelor is a
tautology" that one is not actually saying "the definition or use of bachelor
operates as a tautology." I myself have never had in mind the idea
that "bachelor" apart from its school-boy definition or apart from its
circuitous uses was a "tautology." I don't even know what that would mean. It
would be like someone saying a sound is a tautology. (Although I can imagine a
scenario where this might be meaningful, given the way language works!. Stereo:
the tautology of music). So that one was always a non-starter. Let's say it
this way: we agree with that.
2. I have no problem with the idea that a logic-centric sense of tautology
would want the sharp boundary of the sentence or proposition. Since we both
agree on (1), the issue of using the word not in that sense seems home to the
family.
3. I can't agree with several things you have said about what analytic
philosophers do with statements like "If Tiger is married, he is not a
bachelor." In fact, this is exactly what the fallacy of analytic philosophy of
this sort is. It pretends as though the statement is not governed by culture
and cognition, and that it presents a question that should be resolved
mimicking science or mathematics. For the truth of the matter is, that the
statement is only governed by sense of the expression, and that once the sense
is shared, there is no other issue other than informational (what Tiger did,
what his "marriage" is like).
If we would treat married and bachelors only as predicate-calculators, we would
have precluded any counter-examples from being shown by virtue of the language
game being used. We would have shut them out. You seem to think that logic has
some status over language. I sense this in you. You must be a philosophy
professor who teaches symbolic logic. Let me help you with this: "I release
you." (You like Lord of the Rings?)
Here's what I think you aren't getting. Definitions don't prescribe the use of
words, behavior does. What are commonly called definitions in dictionaries are
nothing but accounts of these uses. Sort of like a newspaper for the language
game. No one I know of would credibly say that if a use was meaningfully
understood that it couldn't be made because the dictionary didn't yet have it.
And so, for the idea of calling Tiger a "bachelor" to be a joke can only be
true IN A SENSE OF TALKING. You are observing a fence again. You use the word
"bachelor" and "marriage" with a fence in both yards. That's fine. You're
allowed. Many people do. Your point is taken. But what you don't understand is
that if people use these words without such fences, they too are allowed
whatever goals they score
E.g., Being married to yourself is a meaningful idea. So is being married to
work, an expression which is widely in play in the language game. (I myself am
married to my ideas).
So, the next time you put the Tiger sentence up and call it "logic," you may
want to replace that with sense of expression. Once again, the right analysis
is this:
1. If the bearer called TIGER is married (in a sense of that word), he is not a
bachelor (in a sense of that word). [IT DOESN'T FOLLOW].
You are correct that taking on some senses of expression may alter related
ones. But there are a couple of things here: the language room re-arranges
itself even after one uses something out of common order. Brains are good at
doing this. Besides, if the issue is "logic," none of that matters. You can't
moralize your way into logic. You can't say, "you can't use that sense of
'bachelor' or 'married' in my logic proposition analysis because it ignores the
true consequences of what Tiger did and makes someone speak differently than
Joe Friday." If it's logic, it's logic. (And you can't do logic with family
resemblances, at least not very easily).
The Pope example that you exempt is of the same sort of thing as Tiger. Here is
the key to the riddle: the point of "bachelor" in the language game is to
denote "dating eligibility." That's what the idea does in the game, which is
all tha matters. Question: Did Tiger have a bachelor pad? Answer: he probably
did. Does the Pope have a bachelor pad? Answer: no. What's the difference? One
is eligible to date, the other isn't. Asking whether Tiger is a "bachelor" is
a language game every bit the same as asking whether a penguin is a bird or a
scorpion a bug or a large living-room bean bag a chair. In this language game,
the funcion of the idea is present (eligibility to date) but the format isn't
right (is married). This language game transposes form and function. The Pope
is the opposite: he is not eligible to date but is not married. He has the
format of bachelor but not its function. Many family resemblance games do this.
Imagine someone asking inside Tiger's female circle whether Tiger was a
"bachelor." What would the inside person say? They'd probably be unsure of what
to say. They might say, "he is and he isn't." Or, he is IN A SENSE. Tiger is
a family member who you have fenced off with a sharp boundary.
And by way, calling Tiger a bachelor would not upset anything in the culture or
the language game. It would overturn nothing. It would simply be another case
of mix-and-match.
Regards.
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:
