philosophy question

[Guest]

Well, Austin was funny, and reading that stuff on the page makes him sound a little dusty.

One of my favorite quotes from him (I don't have the book to hand) is something like "Philosophers should stop asking about what is "The Good" and "The Beautiful"; they'd be better off thinking about "the dainty" and "the dumpy".

In other words, there's a rich mine of learning from thinking about so-called plain, simple words like these.

Every time I see two words that mean the same thing, and have to choose one, I'm reminded of him.

She clutched his throbbing dick
She gripped his throbbing dick
She clasped his throbbing dick

WHich to choose? Any of them will do for me right now <horny sigh>

 

[Guest]

Joe! I just found out John Searle (still at Berkeley) was Austin's student and further developed his "analysis of performative utterances. Searle focused on what Austin had called illocutionary acts, acts performed in saying something."

Woo woo woo! (My friend knew Searle; wink wink...)

What a small world, eh?

Perdita

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Every time I see two words that mean the same thing, and have to choose one, I'm reminded of him.

She clutched his throbbing dick
She gripped his throbbing dick
She clasped his throbbing dick

WHich to choose? Any of them will do for me right now <horny sigh>

Which one do you think Jane Austen would have chosen?

 

[Guest]

Which one do you think Jane Austen would have chosen?

The one with at least 15K pounds per year.

P.

 

[BetaTrine_Flux]

actually

damppanties, you thanked that guy for finding a mistake you didn't make... if you look at your post chomsky is listed as a nativist.
just being a little anal.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

That little gold-digger...

 

[Guest]

Just read your bio, beta. Respect.

 

[Pure]

beta said,

//just being a little anal.//

'silly' is closer.

 

[damppanties]

Re: actually

damppanties, you thanked that guy for finding a mistake you didn't make... if you look at your post chomsky is listed as a nativist.
just being a little anal.

I thanked Pure for pointing out a mistake I did make. If you check the time stamp on my edit to that post, you'll realise I changed it after Pure pointed out the mistake so as not to confuse the people who read it after him. I don't think I succeeded. Confusion reigns.

 

[snooper]

Deleted

Sv'a, is that a statement of fact or an expression of desire, and if the latter, the whole thread or just one post?

... Confusion reigns ...

Only to be expected on a philosophical thread about philosophy.

 

[damppanties]

... Confusion reigns ...

Only to be expected on a philosophical thread about philosophy.

At least I tried.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Sv'a, is that a statement of fact or an expression of desire, and if the latter, the whole thread or just one post?

No, I just deleted my post because I mixed up J. Austen and J. Austin.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

Nil posse creari de nilo - Nothing can be created out of nothing.
Lucretius 99-55 BC

To make light of philosophy is to be a true philosopher.
Pascal

A married philospher belongs to comedy.
Nietzsche

All philosophies, if you ride them home, are nonsense; but some are greater nonsense than others.
Samuel Butler (d 1902)

 

[Guest]

Philosphers should find something their own size to strain at. - J.L. Austin.

 

[Pure]

Grammarians, Josh, dr m, KM and other literate deep, thinkers, please advise,

Is this sentence, from quoted material in my posting above, ungrammatical; merely awkward; or fine, but a bit complex. And give your reasons.

On the other side, whilst Locke was impressed by much of Descartes’s presentation of knowledge, and borrowed heavily from it, he never looks like subscribing at all to the central rationalist doctrines, and indeed saw his work as a major refutation of them. {Roger's essay on Locke, from Locke Studies, posted above}

I've told the editor it's not grammatical, and he sees no problem.

Thanks!

 

[Black Tulip]

Grammarians, Josh, dr m, KM and other literate deep, thinkers, please advise,

Is this sentence, from quoted material in my posting above, ungrammatical; merely awkward; or fine, but a bit complex. And give your reasons.

On the other side, whilst Locke was impressed by much of Descartes’s presentation of knowledge, and borrowed heavily from it, he never looked like subscribing at all to the central rationalist doctrines, and indeed saw his work as a major refutation of them. {Roger's essay on Locke, from Locke Studies, posted above}

I've told the editor it's not grammatical, and he sees no problem.

Thanks!

As fas as I could see, you switched from past to present and back to past.

Edited: No deep thinking, just a school teacher at heart, hence the red.

 

[Guest]

I wish I could do that in real life (sigh)

 

[Pure]

OK, simpler version, is this grammatical

//Whilst he rarely stumbled in his words, he never looked like having a full command of his second language.//

 

[damppanties]

OK, simpler version, is this grammatical

//Whilst he rarely stumbled in his words, he never looked like having a full command of his second language.//

Whilst he rarely stumbled in his words, it never looked like he had a full command of his second language.

 

[Pure]

I agree damp; and would you agree that the original sentence about Locke has a similar defect?

 

[damppanties]

Similar Pure, not same. I have no idea why, but the sentence in the Locke essay sounds less wrong than the one you wrote (except for the tense bit which BT corrected).

Whilst I never stumble in my words, it never looks like I have a full command of my second language, English.

 

[NoJo]

Austin was often criticised for splitting hairs and always focusing on words, rather than big philosophical questions. This guy was Chair of Moral Philosophy at Oxford, one of the most senior academic posts in Britain.

The chair was later held by Dame Mary Warnock, whom governments have frequently consulted on big moral questions like abortion, cloning, age of consent, etc.

Here's part of Austin's justification for why he spent most of his time as a philospher thinking about language, i.e. what we say, rather than what we do:


First, words are our tools, and, as a minimum, we should use clean tools: we should know what we mean and what we do not, and we must forearm ourselves against the traps that language sets us.

Secondly, words are not (except in their own little corner) facts or things: we need therefore to prise them off the world, to hold them apart from and against it, so that we can realize their inadequacies and arbitrariness, and can re-look at the world without blinkers.

Thirdly, and more hopefully, our common stock of words embodies all the distinctions people have found worth drawing, and the connexions they have found worth making, in the lifetimes of many generations...

J L Austin

So, keep scribbling.

 

[Black Tulip]

Now, that is writing straight into my heart!

I read something about second language.
When do you say you have a second language?
I think my grasp of English is not too bad, but I wouldn't say it's my second language.

Any ideas out there?

 

[damppanties]

Now, that is writing straight into my heart!

I read something about second language.
When do you say you have a second language?
I think my grasp of English is not too bad, but I wouldn't say it's my second language.

Any ideas out there?

Hmmm, well, second language. I guess English is my second language because I did not speak it at home. The first language I used to communicate was not English. I'm more comfortable in English now than in my first language, but that's not the point. Or is it?

 

[snooper]

On the other side, whilst Locke was impressed by much of Descartes’s presentation of knowledge, and borrowed heavily from it, he never looks like subscribing at all to the central rationalist doctrines, and indeed saw his work as a major refutation of them.

Sorry, I'm late, but yes, change "looks" to "looked" and delete the comma after "knowledge", please.