Quine- Synonmym- Interchangibility: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Language » Quine- Synonmym- Interchangibility » Quine- Synonmym- Interchangibility

Quine- Synonmym- Interchangibility

Page: 1 2

Quine- Synonmym- Interchangibility

unenlightened
everything is...

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

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 07/13/09 - 06:56 PM:	#11
I'm out of my depth here, really. But it might be worth pointing out that heart and kidney are parts of a blood circulatory system. Defined as blood pump, and blood cleaner, it becomes clearer why they always appear together. Of course, a dead animal can have one organ removed, and then they no longer have the same truth value, and similarly, a live animal can be connected to an external 'artificial kidney' - is that still a kidney, and does the animal still 'have' it? But barring such exceptions, it is no more accidental that they have the same extension than it is an accident that a person with a left side of the body also invariably has a right side.
...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

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/14/09 - 04:43 PM:	#12
yasseford wrote: It seems counter-intuitive to create the eternal/occasion distinction when Quine admits that meaning is not inherently attached to a word. I'm a sophist when it comes to Quine's philosophy of language though, so perhaps there is some merit to having this sort of distinction that is beyond me. I don't see how it's counter-intuitive (not suggesting it's not - just honestly don't see it).

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/14/09 - 04:47 PM:	#13
unenlightened wrote: I'm out of my depth here, really. But it might be worth pointing out that heart and kidney are parts of a blood circulatory system. Defined as blood pump, and blood cleaner, it becomes clearer why they always appear together. Of course, a dead animal can have one organ removed, and then they no longer have the same truth value, and similarly, a live animal can be connected to an external 'artificial kidney' - is that still a kidney, and does the animal still 'have' it? But barring such exceptions, it is no more accidental that they have the same extension than it is an accident that a person with a left side of the body also invariably has a right side. Well, it is "accidental" in the sense that it is not a priori known. Learning from experience, we come to know creatures with kidneys are creatures with hearts; and also that people with a left side have a right side. It wouldn't be a contradiction in terms for someone to be missing their left side (though it goes against accepted theories of biology).

makerowner
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 15, 2008

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 326

Posted 07/14/09 - 05:39 PM:	#14
unenlightened wrote: I'm out of my depth here, really. But it might be worth pointing out that heart and kidney are parts of a blood circulatory system. Defined as blood pump, and blood cleaner, it becomes clearer why they always appear together. Of course, a dead animal can have one organ removed, and then they no longer have the same truth value, and similarly, a live animal can be connected to an external 'artificial kidney' - is that still a kidney, and does the animal still 'have' it? But barring such exceptions, it is no more accidental that they have the same extension than it is an accident that a person with a left side of the body also invariably has a right side. The point of the example doesn't have anything to do with biology. The point is that this kind of statement has traditionally been called a fact about the world, made true by the world, etc., whereas "all bachelors are unmarried" has traditionally been called a tautology, made true by the meanings of our words, etc.--but the only way to distinguish between the two cases seems to be to use the concepts 'necessity', 'meaning', etc. that are in question. Quine's argument is that this circularity of definitions makes the analytic/synthetic distinction useless. Any other fact that happens to be true but doesn't seem to be "necessarily" true, or "true by definition" would work just as well.
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.

unenlightened
everything is...

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

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3283

Posted 07/15/09 - 09:43 AM:	#15
makerowner wrote: The point of the example doesn't have anything to do with biology. Nor does my point. All car-owners have a set of wheels. all car-owners have an engine. Do these both 'just happen' to be true? What of a child's pedal-car; we could say that the child is his own engine, or we could say that the expressions are no longer co-extensive, or we could say that a toy car is not a car. It's a decision. It used to be a tautology that all swans are white. So when someone produces a long-necked, large bird that is black, we have to decide whether to change our minds about what swans are, or whether to call this thing by another name a 'bwan', or 'a long-necked crow'. So if I indulge in an unofficial, pagan marriage that lasts for a year and a day, am I still a bachelor? Or if I cohabit for a while? It's surely a matter of drawing the lines that define the terms, which 'the facts' suggest more or less strongly from time to time, but never completely impose. Umberto Eco has some interesting comments in Kant and the Platypus.
...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 07/15/09 - 11:13 AM:	#16
unenlightened wrote: Nor does my point. All car-owners have a set of wheels. all car-owners have an engine. Do these both 'just happen' to be true? What of a child's pedal-car; we could say that the child is his own engine, or we could say that the expressions are no longer co-extensive, or we could say that a toy car is not a car. It's a decision. It used to be a tautology that all swans are white. So when someone produces a long-necked, large bird that is black, we have to decide whether to change our minds about what swans are, or whether to call this thing by another name a 'bwan', or 'a long-necked crow'. So if I indulge in an unofficial, pagan marriage that lasts for a year and a day, am I still a bachelor? Or if I cohabit for a while? It's surely a matter of drawing the lines that define the terms, which 'the facts' suggest more or less strongly from time to time, but never completely impose. Umberto Eco has some interesting comments in Kant and the Platypus. OK, I misunderstood what you were saying. But it seems like you're saying the same thing as Quine, just from a different angle. Quine doesn't accept the distinction between necessary and accidental truths; his argument starts from there because it's been generally accepted, and then goes on to say that we can't make sense of the distinction because all the terms used to make it (necessary, synonymous, a priori) are defined by each other.
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.

aufbau87
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 08, 2008
Location: Southern California

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 62

Posted 07/15/09 - 11:35 PM:	#17
unenlightened wrote: Nor does my point. All car-owners have a set of wheels. all car-owners have an engine. Do these both 'just happen' to be true? What of a child's pedal-car; we could say that the child is his own engine, or we could say that the expressions are no longer co-extensive, or we could say that a toy car is not a car. It's a decision. It used to be a tautology that all swans are white. (O) 'is a car-owner' and (W) 'has a set of wheels' and (E) 'has an engine' are not coextensive. O implies W&E W&E does not imply O (a Honda in a car manufacturing factory does not (yet) have a car owner) W does not imply E (bicycles do not have engines) E does not imply W (motor-boats have engines and no wheels) These things, also, do just happen to be true, i.e., they are not true "necessarily". Since Quine is skeptical of necessity, perhaps even saying they "happen to be true" is misleading. They are true, period (or probable, period). But your point remains -- it is a choice whether or not we wish to call things that are non-white swans, if they are otherwise classifiable as swans. Suppose we do decide to classify swans such that if something is not white, then they are not a swan. Does this make "all swans are white" analytic? Well, it is so only if we agree that 'is a swan' and 'is white' are synonymous (or partially synonymous, i.e., it is part of the meaning of swan that whatever is a swan, it is white). One of Quine's responses to this answer is that it presupposes that we understand the terms 'synonymy' and 'meaning', terms he suspects are too unclear to shed any light on the problem of clarifying analyticity. So if I indulge in an unofficial, pagan marriage that lasts for a year and a day, am I still a bachelor? Or if I cohabit for a while? It's surely a matter of drawing the lines that define the terms, which 'the facts' suggest more or less strongly from time to time, but never completely impose. Umberto Eco has some interesting comments in Kant and the Platypus. Quine would agree. It is a decision where we draw the lines for the terms at hand. But it's besides the point. Analyticity is not clarified by saying we have latitude in classifying objects. Moreover, Quine would be skeptical of one saying "I propose that the meaning of 'is a swan' implies 'is white'"; how is this different than saying "I propose that 'is a swan' implies 'is white'"? The latter we understand clearly enough, but what does the former way of putting it add? The usual response is that the former way communicates the idea that we are dealing with a "necessary" implication; but, of course, Quine has reservations about necessity, so he will assuredly not be impressed by this response.

Page: 1 2

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