Fido is a dog
Yeah, I get that, I get he's a dog.'
But how do you know that, for here we are launched into the theory of linguistic reference.
And every theory, requires a meta or ascendant theory and there is now view from nowhere where we can pronounce objectively. There is no theory-transcendent position from which to judge reality; s/he must speak from within his theory
You have taken the observation sentence 'Fido is a dog' holophrastically ((i.e. as unanalysed wholes) by subtracting whatever in it is peculiar to the particular language in which it is expressed to arrive at a fact which is to the maximum degree independent of conceptual scheme.
We are in language and as some would have it, language is fascistic for it compels us to speak
'Getting it' that Fido is a dog.., or any linguistic communication is no more than an anodyne epistemic interpretation and highly suspect notion on a par of the claim for essence
We can extend this linguistic delving in morals by dividing them into into two largely overlapping classes, the altruistic and the ‘ceremonial’ Here once again we have a deplorable 'you go low I go high' the simplistic Clinton claim in the recent US election. What we have here is a deplorable lack of
empirical controls, a kind of methodological infirmity of ethics as say - compared with science.
Fido is a dog...we go low we go high, are posits the simplest and laziest of all worlds and if we accept such simplicities it governs our conceptual construction of the world.
Fido is a dog a Physical objects, is fundamentally a construction. Our purpose in introducing Fido/Dog is to store up ‘observation categoricals’ in a logically compact form
However, we have to get on with it, however lazily, and this requirement requires that there is minimum mutilation’ and an internal constraint on the acceptability of a construction of the world. This world, as Thomas Quine views it, as a human construction.
I return, Fido is a dog is true only if Fido is a dog, To understand a sentence is to know the conditions under which it is true,
Fido is a dog, ie the sameness of meaning is a useful notion in everyday life, but it has no role to play in our ‘first-class’ scientific theory of the world.
Or as Quine writes, ending his essay on Communication: ‘We get an exaggerated idea of how well we have been understood, simply for want of checkpoints to the contrary. The miracle of communication, in its outer reaches, is a little like the miracle of transubstantiation
(the miraculous religious ritual of converting wine into water).
.
Yeah, I get that, I get he's a dog.'
But how do you know that, for here we are launched into the theory of linguistic reference.
And every theory, requires a meta or ascendant theory and there is now view from nowhere where we can pronounce objectively. There is no theory-transcendent position from which to judge reality; s/he must speak from within his theory
You have taken the observation sentence 'Fido is a dog' holophrastically ((i.e. as unanalysed wholes) by subtracting whatever in it is peculiar to the particular language in which it is expressed to arrive at a fact which is to the maximum degree independent of conceptual scheme.
We are in language and as some would have it, language is fascistic for it compels us to speak
'Getting it' that Fido is a dog.., or any linguistic communication is no more than an anodyne epistemic interpretation and highly suspect notion on a par of the claim for essence
We can extend this linguistic delving in morals by dividing them into into two largely overlapping classes, the altruistic and the ‘ceremonial’ Here once again we have a deplorable 'you go low I go high' the simplistic Clinton claim in the recent US election. What we have here is a deplorable lack of
empirical controls, a kind of methodological infirmity of ethics as say - compared with science.
Fido is a dog...we go low we go high, are posits the simplest and laziest of all worlds and if we accept such simplicities it governs our conceptual construction of the world.
Fido is a dog a Physical objects, is fundamentally a construction. Our purpose in introducing Fido/Dog is to store up ‘observation categoricals’ in a logically compact form
However, we have to get on with it, however lazily, and this requirement requires that there is minimum mutilation’ and an internal constraint on the acceptability of a construction of the world. This world, as Thomas Quine views it, as a human construction.
I return, Fido is a dog is true only if Fido is a dog, To understand a sentence is to know the conditions under which it is true,
Fido is a dog, ie the sameness of meaning is a useful notion in everyday life, but it has no role to play in our ‘first-class’ scientific theory of the world.
Or as Quine writes, ending his essay on Communication: ‘We get an exaggerated idea of how well we have been understood, simply for want of checkpoints to the contrary. The miracle of communication, in its outer reaches, is a little like the miracle of transubstantiation
(the miraculous religious ritual of converting wine into water).
.
No comments:
Post a Comment