infelicity: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » infelicity » infelicity

infelicity

Page: 1 2

infelicity

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

Posted 07/02/09 - 02:04 PM: Subject: infelicity	#1
Causality said a few rather interesting things in the thread What is value, and I intend to go back there and press the case against the distinction between "ought" and "is" statements. But in re-reading some material, I went back the Austin's How to do things with words, and was reminded of his doctrine of infelicity. "I know that your name is Earnest, but it is not true" doesn't work. One can only know what one believes. "I promise to take you for coffee, but I am not going to" does not work, either, though perhaps in a different way. Both breech the conventions for the use of their main function. One cannot (happily) know an untruth; and one cannot (happily) promise what one does nto intend to do. Each contains an infelicity.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Jehu
Revealer

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 30, 2006

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 883

Posted 07/02/09 - 05:38 PM:	#2
It is interesting to note that, like the “liar paradox”, both propositions violate the law of contradiction; for it is implicit in any proposition that what is asserted is true, and therefore, no self referencing proposition may declare itself untrue – for a proposition cannot, at the same time, be both true (implicitly) and not true (explicitly).
It is not that which the eye can see, but that whereby the eye is able to see, that is the true reality.

wuliheron
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 02, 2003
Location: Newport News, Va

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 4158

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:26 PM:	#3
That is also a well discussed issue in psychology, which takes a different approach. Namely, how is denial possible? How can someone deny to themselves what they know to be true. The simple answer is that emotions are inherently irrational.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 07/02/09 - 06:29 PM:	#4
You know that my name is unenlightened, but it's not true. My name is bob. But that's not true either, my name is Robert, but no one knows me by my true name. I promised the robber I would not call the police, but I fully intended to the moment I was able.(I was not so foolish as to say this latter out loud in his hearing though.)
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 07/03/09 - 07:08 AM:

unenlightened wrote:
You know that my name is unenlightened, but it's not true. My name is bob. But that's not true either, my name is Robert, but no one knows me by my true name.

I promised the robber I would not call the police, but I fully intended to the moment I was able.(I was not so foolish as to say this latter out loud in his hearing though.)

Those aren't counterexamples. It is true that your name is unenlightened, and it's also true that your name is Bob, and also that your name is Robert. (I'm assuming that you're telling us the truth about your name.) But the point of Austin's infelicity examples isn't that I can't know something that isn't true, it's that I can't (correctly) say that I know something and that I don't believe it. "I know that X" implies "I believe that X", so I can't assert the one and deny the other. I can still say "I know that X" even if X is not true, if I believe that X, have good reason to believe that X, etc.; my statement "I know that X" will be untrue, but will still be felicitous.

As for the promise, note that the "doesn't work" in Banno's post doesn't mean "is impossible"; it's simply that a promise made with no intention of being fulfilled isn't really a promise, or is a dishonest promise. Just as I can be dishonest about my beliefs (stating something as if I believed it when I don't), I can be dishonest about my promises (stating that I intend to do something when I don't; though there's more to a promise than just stating, as Austin pointed out), but in each case the dishonesty breaks the rules of the "language-game" in question. I'm asserting or promising infelicitously.

For philosophy, Socrates, if pursued in moderation and at the proper age, is an elegant accomplishment, but too much philosophy is the ruin of human life. Even if a man has good parts, still, if he carries philosophy into later life, he is necessarily ignorant of all those things which a gentleman and a person of honour ought to know.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

Posted 07/03/09 - 01:36 PM:	#6
Is "democracy is hexagonal" false? I don't think so. I think it just fails as a statement. "I name this ship the Mr Stalin", uttered by a loan protestor as he leaps onto the podium and smashes the champaign on the side of the ship before the Queen can do the job, does not name the ship.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6309

Posted 07/03/09 - 01:41 PM:	#7
unenlightened wrote: Y I promised the robber I would not call the police, but I fully intended to the moment I was able.(I was not so foolish as to say this latter out loud in his hearing though.) Did he believe you? Doesn't your lack of a concomitant intent imply that the promise failed? You did not place yourself under an obligation to the thief, as is expected with such an utterance? Or did you place yourself under an obligation to the thief, and yet decide to follow a greater obligation to the public safety, or at least the return of your property? What is the precise nature of this infelicity?
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 07/03/09 - 03:31 PM:	#8
I haven't read the piece by Austin; what would he say about (certain instances of) self-deception? Suppose someone proclaims that they're going to quit smoking (I'm not sure about them doing it "happily" but suppose they're determined and, for all intents and purposes, they have a positive outlook on that decision). Suppose they fail, as they often do. None the less, they truly believe that "this is the time," despite how many times that notion has failed them in the past.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3286

Posted 07/03/09 - 04:09 PM:	#9
Banno wrote: What is the precise nature of this infelicity? I think in common parlance, I was lying. I said "X" knowing that "not-X". I declared an intent that I did not have. When I was a child, it was common to repudiate a promise 'because I had my fingers crossed'. A hidden gesture 'declares' the untruth of what is being said. But it is not necessarily duplicity about which one is 'infelicitous'. If I were to say "he was crushed by his wife's death." I might freely admit that the corpse did not land on him from a great height, yet still claim that it was a true and meaningful statement. Or try the infelicity of OCD - " I know I locked the front door... but I don't know that I did." One can be in two contradictory minds about something. One half must be false, but also both are true; we are not dealing with dishonesty here. I think the whole thing becomes rather vague and complex in part because the identity of the speaker is itself something of a fiction - Just because sentences issue from the one mouth, one tends to imagine that they come from the same speaker. That we are bound by our word is another metaphor - true only in the sense that we choose to behave 'as if' it were true - well, most of the time.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Minyun
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 251

Posted 07/05/09 - 11:54 AM:	#10
This one is close to me, if you must, please forgive my passion. Truth should be renamed belief. If it were possible, that every human on the earth could believe the same thing, we would definately have found truth. Alas, we are individuals with our own ideas. I've often wondered what the solution to this 'truth' problem would be, generally when I am perplexed by such a problem as this (one without solutions) I assert that there really should not be any problem in the first place, for it is unsolvable. It is like wondering what the problem with water is? When really there is no problem, we have just turned it into one. We cannot change the worlds people to our ways of thinking, but what we can do is accept this principle, that the truth in something is simply a belief. We are all believers in our own truths, but we are still primitive in the way that we let our beliefs/truths compete against each other, because we desire property in this universe, i.e. the more people that see things as I do will bring me more property of what is mine, it is fueled by greed. (we will say that this adversity inspires progress in our species, because this is the only way forward that we can see due to history) however I think there is a balance to made here, too much adversity and one could quickly start moving backwards on the progressive scale. The problem is competition, it has provided well for millenia, in order that we are not just another species on this rock then we must indeed take it to the next level. In my opinion Evolutions major goal is to work its way out of competition, much like the lotus lilly. Accept that your truths are simply beliefs, understand that there are others like you and love will flourish and those affected would have found truth. This is my understanding of this problem and a viable solution out of it. I don't come here to compete in idle banter, I come here to tell you that it is killing us. The time fast approaches when governments philosophies will differ on something possibly as arbitrary as the 'truth', many lives will be lost, by then it will be too late. Examples of destructive argumentative behaviour on 'truth', are strewn on this forum if you care for evidence. Changing the worlds attitude starts with you.

Page: 1 2

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