From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!egnilges Mon Dec  9 10:48:45 EST 1991
Article 1936 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:11288 sci.philosophy.tech:1324 comp.ai.philosophy:1936
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!att!princeton!phoenix.Princeton.EDU!egnilges
>From: egnilges@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Ed Nilges)
Subject: Re: Existence
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.190338.2203@Princeton.EDU>
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Sender: news@Princeton.EDU (USENET News System)
Nntp-Posting-Host: phoenix.princeton.edu
Organization: Princeton University
References: <1991Dec6.165648.6234@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec6.204854.2218@arizona.edu> <1991Dec7.070815.6257@husc3.harvard.edu>
Distribution: world,local
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 19:03:38 GMT
Lines: 70

In article <1991Dec7.070815.6257@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <1991Dec6.204854.2218@arizona.edu> 
>
>Bill Skaggs, Center for Neural Systems, Memory, and Aging, Arizona
>>This is a fantastic exchange, because it wonderfully illustrates the
>>most common trap philosophers fall into, which I call the "In the
>>beginning was the word" fallacy:  the assumption that words have
>>well-defined meanings, independent of how they are learned and used,
>>and that by careful analysis we can uncover those meanings.
>
>You are being presumptious here.  In philosophical discourse, we allow the
>meaning of words to be determined in part by the arguments of philosophers
>who used them before us, who applied their analytic powers to the study of
>concepts, rather than word meanings as such.  Philosophical discourse,
>unlike the discourse of modern linguistics, is highly prescriptive,
>conforming to the precedent set by this tradition; however, since it often
>resembles natural language, an outsider can easily fall into the common
>trap of assuming that philosophical terms have the same meaning as their
>vulgar homonyms.

Mikhail makes what appears to be a sort of Freudian slip here in calling
Mr. Skaggs "presumptious."  I believe Mikhail thought he was meaning
to charge Mr. Skaggs with assuming too much.  Instead, Mikhail used
a word that would be used by a master to refer to the behavior of a
servant.  Such discourse, obviously, has no place in philosophy, a
democracy, or at least a meritocracy of intellect.

Mikhail displays an ignorance that I will charitably describe as
willful, of one hundred years of recent tradition that DENIES that
philosophers have any right to "prescriptive" discourse, and Mr.
Skaggs is making a perfectly valid point.

Mikhail illustrates, along with Sheldon Glashow, how logical positivism
and analytic philosophy in general becomes, in dialog with
Wittgensteinian strains and with feminism, an ossified and most
retrograde Platonic tradition.  In 1970, Korner's association of
Russellian logicism with Platonism seemed almost paradoxical, but
it is clear that Mikhail's technocracy has lost whatever democratic
or empowering force it once had.

This is fascinating, for it mirrors a larger ossification of a
midcentury liberal state (exemplified in pre-1966 America and pre-
1967 Israel) that in dialog with Naziism "had history on its side"
but now (in dialog, again, with figures so disparate as Palestinian
teenagers and Professor Anita Hill) is indeed a valley of dry bones.
For further reading, see Lewis H. Lapham's excellent column in this
month's Harper's.

>
>BS:
>>The word at issue here is "exist".
>
>And the relevant tradition is exemplified by the writings of Plato,
>Aristotle, Anselm, Berkeley, Kant, Russell, Quine, and Church.

God, I'd love to lead a platoon consisting of that lot.  Talk about
dead white guys: this is the Geek Patrol.
>
>Only to those unduly preoccupied with vulgar discourse.

(Shudder) As opposed to the notation of Principia?
>
>None whatsoever to the hoi polloi.  What the fuck are you doing posting to
>a philosiophy newsgroup?

And who put the pubic hair in my Coke can?  Note the non-vulgar,
civilized and refined tone Misha uses in his doomed attempt to
give our Arizonan pal the bum's rush.




