Re: [quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 09:36:47 -0700 (PDT)

Hi Walter:
Sounds good: more Fodor.
But, just to clarify a fine point, I'm not saying the concept of indeterminacy 
of translation per se is incoherent. Some things are indeterminate, such as the 
position of an electron in a crystal lattice. Where the incoherency in Quine's 
theory arises, in my opinion, is when someone purports to give an example of 
the indeterminacy. For then, that person has to both give the translation and 
insist that it can't be translated.

--- On Wed, 9/22/10, walto <calhorn@xxxxxxx> wrote:

From: walto <calhorn@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [quickphilosophy] Re: Fodor on Concepts IV: Circularity
To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2010, 4:16 AM


--- In quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ron Allen <wavelets@...> wrote:
> Heh, heh, OK, Walter, you win & I give up synonymy in favor of truth.
> It's true that all bachelors are unmarried men, and it's true that all 
> unmarried men are bachelors.

Yes, those are true, but for Quine neither necessarily true nor analytic.

Anyhow, it seems like we're here: you and Budd think Quine's position on 
translation is incoherent, while Martin, Neil and I aren't convinced. I suggest 
we agree to disagree (or to take this up again at some future date) and finish 
Fodor's paper. I think you indicated you wanted to discuss one more argument 
that he makes there. 

Also, I'm still waiting for volunteers to lead discussion of the first 25 and 
last about 50 pages of the McTaggart.


Other related posts: