« Very different from the one you are in now | Main | then worms shall try that long preserved virginity »

February 05, 2006


Moral: always call things with meaning and truth-conditions 'p' or 'q'.

Looks like he got X and S figured out and made some progress structurally, and then he hit the brick wall of feminism.


1. X knows meaning of S


2.The meaning of S equals the truth conditions of X

Alas! A dense wood into which I cannot follow! (wasn't there some squab about continental philosophy being needlessly difficult to follow? I think I remember that. Of course, there is a possibility that this would become clear with context.)

Already confuzzed, my eyes glaze over at 3:

3. S knows that the truth-conditions of X are TC

Because know S is a knowledge-possesing entity which has a meaning which is knowable. Ben suggests it could be a sentence or statement, but it is not obvious to me how such a thing could be said to "know."

I don't have enough footing to even hazard farther; I fear even my confusion would be confused.

a piddling typographical quibble:
it seems to me that X, a knower (and aquaintance of) meanings s/b X, a knower, and aquaintance, of meanings

You must interpret me as making Teh Sense!!!11!

these typepad comments always screw up for me...

Because know S is a

know s/b now

"me" s/b "him", naturalorty.

a piddling typographical quibble:

Oh, too right.

Surprisingly, "naturalorty" is not AOTW googlaboogle.

It's sweet of you to credit me twice; but as for googlaboogle, if I have seen further it is only because I have stood on the nasal bones of giants.

I am still in the market for explanations of what the hell was going on there, BTW.

"Naturalorty" can be yahoo'd. Jeez, Google sucks.

Google has now caught up to "naturalorty," and in fact I have no reason to believe that Yahoo beat them to it.

Well google my boogle!

As for what the hell, here's half an explanation. Lower-case standpipe was me, suffering from an occasional bout of handle disaffection. Of lower-case bridgeplate, I know nothing.

OK, that was what I thought it might be -- it seemed that a 'standpipe' impersonator should not be so bold as to use your e-mail address. You realize, though, that this just provides support to this thesis, subclass Slothrop/dispersion.


Peace be upon him.

Every attempt I have made to construct an argument around such remarks turns into a travesty. The following attempt, suggested by Dummett's discussion of Frege's distinction between sense and reference (TOE 117-126; particularly 124-126),21 is typical (X is a competent speaker): (1) X understands S; (2) X knows the meaning of S; (3) The meaning of S = the truth conditions of S; (4) X knows the truth conditions of S; (5) X knows what the truth conditions of S are. Let TC be the truth conditions of S. .,. (6) X knows that the truth conditions of S are TC. No objection can be taken to (1). And the move to (2) is accepta- ble enough if (2) is taken as a mere everyday manner of speaking. However, if (2) is to be construed as requiring that there exist some entity-the meaning of S-which X knows in the sense that he is acquainted with it, then we should resist the move.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)