Re: Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?

In article <slrngsmfpd.37k.spamspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ben C <spamspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2009-03-26, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <slrngsku9v.3ni.spamspam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Ben C <spamspam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 2009-03-25, dorayme <doraymeRidThis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
....

"A causes B".

A and B point to things in the world. Why does "causes" have to? Why
can't it just be a certain characteristic of the events A and B?

As I said, I can just about make sense of "causes" in this sentence
referring to the cable or mechanism or something.

Why does it have to refer to anything else besides that? How do I tell
in general which words have to refer to things?

"A is bigger than B"

Does "bigger" refer to something? A's size? Or some kind of ontological
bigness?


I am happy to agree that names and definite descriptions refer to things
in many of the true sentences with which we have been dealing. And happy
to say that what is said *about* these things do not point to *objects*
in the world but are simply characteristics of the objects pointed to by
the names and definite descriptions. What is said about objects can be
simple or complex, from "is 4-ft long" to "is midway between Saturn and
Neptune" to... you name it.

It is still the case that one can describe, for the purpose of
reference, an object in causal terms:

1. The cause of the carnage was the bomb placed under the chassis by Mr
X.

Something - the cause of the carnage - is being 'definitely described'
here. This is a technical term meaning it is a phrase that acts rather
like a name with assumptions or pretensions to be picking out some
unique thing in the world, yes, an object, a thing, as in "The man going
into that flat" in

2. The man going into that flat was your husband

And it - The cause of the carnage - is being claimed to be identical
with something else - the bomb placed under the chassis by Mr X - that
is being definitely described also. An identity statement. The very sort
that I used in describing the distinction between sense and reference.

The terms have a sense and they have a reference. I have been urging
that we are okay with the sense. No huge problem here. That is English,
that is meaning, that is the language, that is how we speak and how we
use words. Fine. The really interesting question is what is being picked
out in the non-linguistic world. In the case of the description in 2.
there is no immediate problem. The detective knows what he saw, simple
as that. He knows what sort of thing walked into the blonde's flat, he
knows it was just one man, he noted the time. His definite description
is fashioned in a particular context, it can be filled out a little
more, but it is pretty clear in its meaning or sense. And we are not
having trouble understanding how it can have a reference (call it a
referent if you want) here.

But in the case of 1, there is a sticky problem and it is not different
to the one Hume discussed when all is said and done. Questions arise
about how such a thing in the world is to be identified in such terms
('the cause of the carnage'). How is such a thing to be distinguished
from the bomb itself? Some people would say, by it being true that if
the bomb had not been clamped under the chassis (e.g.. had it been
clamped under a different car in a different street), the reference
would then fail.

I trust we can deal with all quibbles. And, yes, we are going in
circles. But that is the nature of this game. I keep coming back to
counterfactuals because I was not kidding when I said it is pretty hard
to understand causality without using them.

Surely something in the world makes A bigger than B! It can't just be
true in people's minds.

Exactly! For one moment I had to come to realise that you are saying
this and not me! This is what I am saying about the causal relation,
something in the world seems to be needed to make it true. I have been
asking what that might be. I have been keenly putting it every which way
I can think of to you. And while we have journeyed here and there, the
question still remains. What in the world outside of language and us is
cause.

Perhaps nothing! Perhaps, indeed, we need to look not to spooky causal
glue, not to counterfactual worlds, not to complicated stories about
possibilities in combinations of universals in this world, but to us and
our minds?

It is interesting that you should put the point about 'in the mind'.
There was a famous philosopher who thought we brought big frameworks to
the world from our minds - space, time, causality. I did hint at this
when I said a story might need to be told in terms of human theory
building. It may well turn out that there is nothing we can ever really
settle on to identify as a truth-maker in the world to ground the
relations we claim in our sentences. It may be a complicated story about
how our minds need to organise our experiences in this way.

[...]
You say you're not talking about the meaning of the word, but what else
is there here? What is "philosophical speculation"? How is it related to
philosophical illusion and philosophical mistake?


What can I say that I have not already said? Everything important is
what is left. We can talk till the cows come home about meaning. But in
the end, there are questions about the world itself. Hume, I keep
mentioning him because you have a familiarity with him, was interested
in more than the meaning of words. I think this is a fine tradition and
however I admire Wittgenstein, I do not think like his disciples thought,
that philosophy is about clearing up conceptual confusions by attending
to our language.

Conceptual confusions do exist and it is well worth clearing them up and
keeping an eye out for them.


I would be the last to deny this. But I do not have a picture of
philosophy as some sort of muddle clearing house. I am old fashioned and
believe in metaphysics.

--
dorayme
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?
    ... The man visiting the blonde women in the flat above you is your ... a meaning independent of the actual reference. ... refer to or point to the very same and one thing in the world. ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: Why choose a paragraph element for a paragraph?
    ... a meaning independent of the actual reference. ... the other is something about the world outside of language. ... The answer to these concerns about causality lies in more than mere ...
    (alt.html)
  • Re: cdt glossary 0.1.1 (repost)
    ... and /or basic database research. ... A reference is a value used to refer ... ... "Known facts that can be recorded and have implicit meaning." ... variables of a pointer type - these variables ...
    (comp.databases.theory)
  • Re: Existence and presupposition
    ... linguistic meaning but existential meaning. ... But the question is what WE mean by reference. ... the Earth, but only to a concept that the Earth, among other things, ... Mill says that "Socrates" denotes ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: ai and ac
    ... One where "phenomenal experiences" as concept means ... The existence of the meaning of any ... language element, including any idiom, does not rest upon ... language element gains reference outside its formal ...
    (comp.ai.philosophy)