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

  • From: wittrsl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • To: quickphilosophy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:10:11 +0100

Isn't that too strong a requirement?

What is at stake is, for example, that there are numerous translations 
of Dante's Inferno into English.  It isn't that it can't be translated, 
the question is whether there is a correct translation, all the others 
therefore being wrong.

Quine would, I think, say that none of the translations is "correct" and 
none ever will be.  That seems quite sufficient.

On 22/09/10 17:36, Ron Allen wrote:
> 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.
> Thanks!
> --Ron

Other related posts: