NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/sci/philosop/tech/4677

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-03 | 1.8 KB

Xref: sparky sci.philosophy.tech:4677 sci.logic:2530
Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!olivea!charnel!sifon!newsflash.concordia.ca!mizar.cc.umanitoba.ca!feld
From: [e-mail] (Michael Feld)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Expression
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 3 Jan 93 20:52:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 23
Nntp-Posting-Host: ccu.umanitoba.ca

1) That every case of (A&B) is also a case of (A) does not establish
that there is no distinction betwen (A&B) and (A);

2) I think Austin and Searle have it right, in this context: it is the
speech _acts_ we should attend to, and not (at least, not exclusively
to) the sentence forms we use to impliment our actions.  So, we
distinguish describing and prescribing, though the sentence "your fly
is open" can be used to do both, and though declarative sentences with
truth values can be used to prescribe.  "Expressivism", I take it, is
meant to suggest that one function of language is to express, say,
attitudes.  IF -- and in fact it's a big "if" -- "Homicide is always
immoral" functions chiefly to express an attitude towards homicide,
nothing in entailed as to whether "immoral" denotes a property in the
Platonic heavens, the Aristotelian world of properties as multiply
exemplified, or in the conceit of tropes.

As to what true sentences denote, why, of course, as our father Frege
taught us, they denote the true.
--
Michael Feld                  | E-mail: <[e-mail]>
Dept. of Philosophy           | FAX: [phone]
University of Manitoba        | Voice: [phone]
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada