An Attack on Indexicality: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » An Attack on Indexicality » An Attack on Indexicality

An Attack on Indexicality

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

An Attack on Indexicality

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 05/02/09 - 02:12 AM: Subject: An Attack on Indexicality	#1
People... I have been reading "The Problem of the Essential Indexical" by John Perry and I have a proposal in reaction to it. I consider here the three indexicals, I, here, and now. Only these! We want to have a timeline. So here I'll try to remove now by: A human by the name Jesus, social security number so-and-so, white robe, long hair is dead, therefore we are in year 0 (zero). We want to mention a certain place. So here I'll try to remove here by: A place is at the coordinates so-and-so in the system of planet Earth. We want to mention a certain person. So here I'll try to remove I by: A person by the name so-and-so, with the social security number so-and-so, perhaps a description and a history so-and-so. So, are indexicals necessary? I suggest that they are wholly ripe for elimination, theoretically. They are around because they are practical. Let's say we have an actual, obvious space and in it is an object. By giving the right description, we can remove the need for pointing and thus the definite need for indexicals disappears. Let's try with an example from John Perry's article. John Perry writes something like this: "I'm looking for the person who is making a mess in the supermarket. After a while I find that the person who is making the mess is myself. I'm making a mess. I'm taking action to limit the mess." If I'm to explain this without indexical, I: (John Perry is making a mess at time, t₁, in the supermarket, but he does not know this.) John Perry is looking for the person who is making a mess in the supermarket at time, t₂. After a while at time, t₃, John Perry finds that the person who is making the mess is himself. John Perry has been making a mess. John Perry takes action at time, t₄, to limit the mess. F**k the indexicals! What do you think? Can we do without the indexicals? If something is unclear, please point it out! P.S.: Hans Reichenbach is developing something similar in "Elements of Symbolic Logic, 1947", §50: Token-reflexive Words. We are in the same direction, I believe, with me being a bit more radical. Edited by Aetixintro on 05/02/09 - 02:54 AM. Reason: Error
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

keda
Ijon Tichy

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland

Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 3640

Posted 05/02/09 - 03:44 AM:	#2
Language as a whole is unnecessary. Its just around because its practical. Necessary for what?
All about making money Free Europe Now How to fix your country In thought, men distance themselves from nature in order thus imaginatively to present it to themselves--but only in order to determine how it is to be dominated - Adorno and Horkheimer

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 05/02/09 - 06:38 AM:	#3
http://mind.ucsd.edu/syllabi/00-01...dings/perry_indexical.html Seems to be the article your talking about.. It seems to me that this is a clasic case of philosophers trying to change the way we should all speak. I think that words like I, Now and Here are quite useful, and wouldn't like to give them up for no reason. Edited by Makarismos on 05/02/09 - 06:48 AM

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 05/02/09 - 08:12 AM:	#4
keda wrote: Language as a whole is unnecessary. Its just around because its practical. Necessary for what? Isn't language necessary for the expression of thoughts and communication? I can't see that it's around for sole practical reasons. Where is the alternative? I think it's unfair if you undermine this thread with bullsh*t! Why don't you just let it sink to the bottom of the ocean? Be serious! That's good, Makarismos! I've been searching the net for other contemporary articles and I've been unsuccessful so I haven't searched this time around. Well, people, if you want the article known, just consume it! I don't exactly know the importance of indexicals, but I've already hinted at the practical importance. You don't have any arguments for the sake of theory, Makarismos? I'm just curious, how deep into Phil. of Lang. are you?
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 05/03/09 - 03:13 AM:	#5
It strikes me that we could replace the I in the first example, with a name (I.e. Makarismos":- Makarismos once followed a trial of sugar on a supermarket floor, pushing [his] cart down the aisle on one side of a tall counter and back the aisle on the other, seeking the shopper with the torn sack to tell him he was making a mess. With each trip around the counter, the trail became thicker. But Makarismos seemed unable to catch up. Finally it dawned on [him]. [He] was the shopper [He] was trying to catch. So it seems (obviously) they "I" be replaced by switching to the third person, and yet writing in the first person is not a matter of efficency, it personalises what is said, and it is the way we all talk. I must admit to being a bit baffled about the point of all this? Is the argument that these "Essential Indexical" should be dropped from language? Or that they should not be used in certain contexts? Or that they are necessary?

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 05/03/09 - 04:06 AM:	#6
Hello, Makarismos. First, John Perry is arguing for the strict necessity of especially the essential indexical. Second, you have my attack on that kind of notion. There is no implication that the indexicals are going to be dropped from the language or that there is a wish for that kind of thing. This is foremost about the necessity of the indexicals and maybe also about certain contexts, the way I understand it.
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Makarismos
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 1206

Posted 05/03/09 - 05:09 AM:	#7
Aetixintro wrote: Hello, Makarismos. First, John Perry is arguing for the strict necessity of especially the essential indexical. Second, you have my attack on that kind of notion. There is no implication that the indexicals are going to be dropped from the language or that there is a wish for that kind of thing. This is foremost about the necessity of the indexicals and maybe also about certain contexts, the way I understand it. I see, so JP believes that these particular words are "essential", and you say they are not? Neither of you wishes to drop the usage of them, but merely to discuss the merits of keeping/using them? And, to be clear, we are not discussing their usage in a particular circumstance, like their use in a novel, their use in a formal letter, an informal letter? I would dispute the idea that any terms in language have any kind of "strict necessity", as language is a fluid thing, and not a formula, or logical system.

Aetixintro
Concepts and descriptions

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Jul 12, 2008

Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 386

Posted 05/03/09 - 09:33 AM:	#8
Makarismos wrote: I see, so JP believes that these particular words are "essential", and you say they are not? Yes. Makarismos wrote: Neither of you wishes to drop the usage of them, but merely to discuss the merits of keeping/using them? Yes. Makarismos wrote: And, to be clear, we are not discussing their usage in a particular circumstance, like their use in a novel, their use in a formal letter, an informal letter? Yes. I haven't analysed whether some parts of language are necessary or not. Has there been an issue on whether natural language is sufficient for the description of science? I believe a lecturer I've had has made a confirming comment on that. Some people say that time isn't objective, but I think you can make every point in time objective as long as you stick to it and work out it's relativity to the other parts of the universe. I think a language looks better if there's no necessity for indexicals. Somehow, it then appears scientifically deeper. There is a strange way of argumentation in the paper of John Perry. It's like there's only been sloppy attempts of making fitting, exhaustive descriptions replacing the indexicals and when one gives this up, one latches onto the necessity of the indexicals. Why can't we assume: "at this moment" = "now", for example? Edited by Aetixintro on 05/03/09 - 09:40 AM
Efficacy of "for since it is at present manifest to me that even bodies are not properly known by the senses nor by the faculty of imagination, but by the understanding alone" - Descartes, Meditation II I'm always wanting more, Anything I haven't got, Everything, I want it all, I just can't stop - The Cure, Want

Schlitz
Hulkamaniac

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009
Location: Home of the Cougar, Illinois

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 232

Posted 05/05/09 - 04:18 PM:	#9
Re: Reichenbach, who I haven't read, but who I know is Putnam's favorite logical positivist- What you're doing is providing what Dummett calls in his 1963 paper (and his much revised 1983 paper of the same title) Realism a reductive thesis. A reductive thesis is a method to transform one class of sentences into another, that, if it's a good reductive thesis, preserves meaning. Logical positivism would rather insist that it preserves confirmation conditions, but that's another issue. It's unsurprising that Reichenbach uses this technique because logical positivists frequently tried to carry out reductions of various fields of inquiry, what they called "the special sciences"- to physics. Carnap's paper Testability and Meaning 1936-1937 gives a good treatment of reduction along these lines. Anyway, you're giving a reductive thesis that reduces sentences that feature indexicals to sentences that feature names of places and times, and this is definitely a success; even more so, I'd say it's an explication of what it is to understand sentences that feature indexicals. So Perry is wrong. Rock on. Edited by Schlitz on 05/06/09 - 06:13 PM

Incision
Professor

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jan 04, 2008
Location: Utah

Total Topics: 23
Total Posts: 905

Posted 05/05/09 - 09:50 PM:	#10
Now Schlitz, I'm not eager to disagree with you in phil of language, but it seems neither you nor Aexitintro have addressed Perry's argument, to which I admit sympathy. My belief that my post count should be increased (partly) explains why I write this post. If the reduction works, then Incision's belief that Incision's post count should be increased explains why Incision writes this post. But it seems not to. I conceivably might not know that I am Incision. And how would you explain that to me without indexicals? ("Incision is Incision." "Well, I know that much." "This person here is Incision." "But those are indexicals.") It seems "Incision" is missing something.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.