Comments on: "Philosophy of language is the foundation for all the rest of philosophy"

"Philosophy of language is the foundation for all the rest of philosophy"

bodywithoutorgans — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:19:34 -0800

Eminent analytic philosopher, logician, anti-racist activist, Tarot scholar, and Catholic Sir Michael Dummett has died at 86.

By: daniel_charms

daniel_charms — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:20:32 -0800

By: Navelgazer

Navelgazer — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:35:15 -0800

By: Jahaza

Jahaza — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:39:11 -0800

By: No Robots

No Robots — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:44:09 -0800

Tears for the passing of an 86-year-old philosopher? I hope he wouldn't approve.

By: daniel_charms

daniel_charms — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:47:29 -0800

Not tears, just silence (which, incidentally, has no truth value).

By: joe lisboa

joe lisboa — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:53:16 -0800

By: klausness

klausness — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 08:56:34 -0800

By: Bathtub Bobsled

Bathtub Bobsled — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:12:00 -0800

. I'd recommend looking at some of his work regarding this if you have a few hours and brain cells to burn.

By: Jonathan Livengood

Jonathan Livengood — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:23:01 -0800

By: Toekneesan

Toekneesan — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:23:14 -0800

The publisher I work for once published a book on systematic philosophy and its relationship to analytic. That book was, in a sense, an answer to Dummett's famous question: Could analytic philosophy have a systematic approach? This page from our old Web site has the introduction to that book and engages with Dummett's 1975 lecture on the topic. As was typical with Dummett, his answer is qualified with a discourse on the dual meanings of the word systematic. If you're at all curious about systematic philosophy, have a look at the table of contents for this book on this page. That kind of demonstrates the challenge of that approach. Somehow, a period doesn't seem appropriate. Something more conditional might be better. Maybe a colon makes more sense, and or an interpunct. :·

By: Lutoslawski

Lutoslawski — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 09:59:07 -0800

By: thelonius

thelonius — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:09:22 -0800

"People frequently remark that they see no point in observing grammatical rules, so long as they convey their meaning. This is like saying that there is nothing wrong with using a razor blade to cut string, so long as the string is cut... I don't get it. What's wrong with using a razor blade to cut string?

By: saturday_morning

saturday_morning — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:09:38 -0800

Somehow, a period doesn't seem appropriate. Something more conditional might be better. Maybe a colon makes more sense, and or an interpunct. ∴

By: zarq

zarq — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:14:40 -0800

:( .

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:28:21 -0800

> What's wrong with using a razor blade to cut string? The string might be taut and you could have some kind of mishap with an open blade slipping or bouncing. Or, there might not be an adequate surface handy to cut it on. Best to get a nice pair of logic scissors.

By: thelonius

thelonius — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:38:57 -0800

Ah, for the chopping. Of course.

By: jquinby

jquinby — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:44:13 -0800

By: low_horrible_immoral

low_horrible_immoral — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 11:23:36 -0800

By: el_lupino

el_lupino — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:11:49 -0800

By: phrontist

phrontist — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 13:14:15 -0800

What's wrong with using a razor blade to cut string? It dulls the razor. By speaking imprecisely, you diminish the community's ability to communicate precisely. I agree.

By: daniel_charms

daniel_charms — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:17:42 -0800

I disagree. By speaking imprecisely, you diminish the community's ability to understand you precisely - but only temporarily. On the other hand, you increase your own ability to express yourself precisely. If what you're saying is not complete garbage/noise, the rest of us will learn to understand you, increasing our ability to communicate precisely.

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:44:10 -0800

Prescriptivism and descriptivism are both correct, but will always be at war with each other.

By: verstegan

verstegan — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 14:45:18 -0800

I find it pretty cool that, as well as being a world-class philosopher, Dummett was also the world's leading authority on Tarot cards. Famously, he demolished all the theories about the esoteric symbolism of the Tarot pack by showing that it had originated purely as a card game with no occult significance whatsoever. This annoyed a lot of people (including William Empson and Frances Yates) but no one has ever convincingly disproved it. Here is Dummett on the importance of playing games: Intellectuals, scholars and other serious-minded people are prone to consider playing games a trivial occupation on which no one would expend any genuine effort .. Hence, when they contemplate an artefact as beautiful and intricate as the Tarot pack, they cannot bring themselves to believe it to have been invented for play: it must have been intended for some serious purpose such as predicting future events. I think their estimate wrong, both in itself and historically. Attempting by non-rational means to divine what is to happen is one of the most absurd of human activities. Devising and playing games, on the other hand, is a manifestation of ingenuity and of delight in order, an art form as worthy of respect as that of the dance.

By: lazaruslong

lazaruslong — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 15:34:17 -0800

have a look at the table of contents for this book on this page. 6.3.3 Extratheoretical metasystematics i don't even what?

By: phrontist

phrontist — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:20:58 -0800

By speaking imprecisely, you diminish the community's ability to understand you precisely - but only temporarily. Take the example of the double negative in English, which expresses either a positive statement or emphasis to a negative statement. By using one when the other is considered standard, you create ambiguity for the language community you are a part of. Grammatical standards are good. This isn't to say it's easy to pick standards, because it isn't, given the many uses of language-behavior.

By: phrontist

phrontist — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:21:50 -0800

*emphasis of a negative statement (see, practicing what I preach!)

By: egypturnash

egypturnash — Thu, 29 Dec 2011 17:26:26 -0800

By: Twang

Twang — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:44:12 -0800

...Tarot scholar, and Catholic Oops.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:21:24 -0800

Remembering Michael Dummett