The Grice Club

Welcome

The Grice Club

The club for all those whose members have no (other) club.

Is Grice the greatest philosopher that ever lived?

Search This Blog

Monday, May 21, 2018

Some sensible remarks about the senses

Speranza

Fregeanism and Relationism are competing families of solutions to Frege’s Puzzle, and by extension, competing theories of propositional representation. My aim is to clarify what is at stake between them by characterizing and evaluating a Relationist argument. Relationists claim that it is cognitively possible for distinct token propositional attitudes to be, in a sense, qualitatively indistinguishable: to differ in no intrinsic representational features. The idea of an ‘intrinsic representational feature’ is not, however, made especially clear in the argument. I clarify it here and, having done so, offer reason to doubt the argument. This will put us in a position to draw some lessons about the relation between object-directed and representation-internal aspects of cognitive significance.

Frege’s Disimplicature

Speranza

Many philosophers have argued or taken for granted that Frege's puzzle has little or nothing to do with identity statements. I show that this is wrong, arguing that the puzzle can only be motivated relative to a thinker's beliefs about the identity or distinctness of the relevant object. The result is important, as it suggests that the puzzle can be solved, not by a semantic theory of names or referring expressions as such, but simply by a theory of identity statements. To show this, I sketch a framework for developing solutions of this sort. I also consider how this result could be implemented by two influential solutions to Frege's puzzle, Perry's referential-reflexivism and Fine's semantic relationism.

Bruce Fretts's Implicature

Speranza

There was an interesting implicature by Steve Martin reported by Bruce Fretts at

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/arts/television/steve-martin-martin-short-netflix-comedy.html

In fact, the implicature is a triad and involves not just Fretts and Martin, but Short. Here is the passage.

First the reference,

Fretts, Bruce, "Steve Martin and Martin Short on friendship and what's truly funny."


Steve Martin and Martin Short on Friendship and What’s Truly Funny


Now the relevant passage:

Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.
SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
"you were just called" is hyperlinked. To what?
To:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/is-martin-short-the-greatest-talk-show-guest-of-all-time

A piece by Ian Grouch. 

Is Martin Short the Greatest Talk-Show Guest of All Time?


Reference:

Crouch, Ian. Is Martin Short the greatest talk-show guest of all time?

So Fretts is taking some Griceian liberties, because Crouch poses the question, er, in the erotetic mode, as Grice calls it.

So let's revise the NYT wording:

FRETTS: Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.

SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
Let's formalise that alla Frege:

FRETT's proposition:

(i) Short is one of the greatest late-night guests of all time. 
Short's 'correction' -- Short's proposition

(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guest of all time.

Martin's rebuke -- Martin's proposition:

(iii) Short is among the greatest late-time guests of all time.

Fretts:
"Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time."
-- by Ian Crouch. Although Crouch poses this as a question. The article seems to IMPLICATE an affirmative answer to the question in the title. Which leads to Fretts's proposition (i) above.

SHORT 
"Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”"
Leading to Short's proposition (ii)
(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guests of all time.
Note Short's emphasis on "not to correct you," since, alla Grice, he isn't -- at the level of what is said (if not implicated or disimplicated).


MARTIN 
"I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”"

Martin is right. He SHOULD read that article again (i.e. 'reread' it) and check Crouch's lingo.

In any case, consider again the logical form of (i), (ii), and (iii). Grice would say that they are all true at the level of what is said, if not implicated or disimplicated.

There's implicature for you!

Nobody is correcting nobody -- and No body is correcting Any body if you mustn't!

Marty Short's Implicature

Speranza

Speranza

There was an interesting implicature by Steve Martin reported by Bruce Fretts at

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/arts/television/steve-martin-martin-short-netflix-comedy.html

In fact, the implicature is a triad and involves not just Fretts and Martin, but Short. Here is the passage.

First the reference,

Fretts, Bruce, "Steve Martin and Martin Short on friendship and what's truly funny."


Steve Martin and Martin Short on Friendship and What’s Truly Funny


Now the relevant passage:

Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.
SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
"you were just called" is hyperlinked. To what?
To:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/is-martin-short-the-greatest-talk-show-guest-of-all-time

A piece by Ian Grouch. 

Is Martin Short the Greatest Talk-Show Guest of All Time?


Reference:

Crouch, Ian. Is Martin Short the greatest talk-show guest of all time?

So Fretts is taking some Griceian liberties, because Crouch poses the question, er, in the erotetic mode, as Grice calls it.

So let's revise the NYT wording:

FRETTS: Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.

SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
Let's formalise that alla Frege:

FRETT's proposition:

(i) Short is one of the greatest late-night guests of all time. 
Short's 'correction' -- Short's proposition

(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guest of all time.

Martin's rebuke -- Martin's proposition:

(iii) Short is among the greatest late-time guests of all time.

Fretts:
"Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time."
-- by Ian Crouch. Although Crouch poses this as a question. The article seems to IMPLICATE an affirmative answer to the question in the title. Which leads to Fretts's proposition (i) above.

SHORT 
"Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”"
Leading to Short's proposition (ii)
(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guests of all time.
Note Short's emphasis on "not to correct you," since, alla Grice, he isn't -- at the level of what is said (if not implicated or disimplicated).


MARTIN 
"I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”"

Martin is right. He SHOULD read that article again (i.e. 'reread' it) and check Crouch's lingo.

In any case, consider again the logical form of (i), (ii), and (iii). Grice would say that they are all true at the level of what is said, if not implicated or disimplicated.

There's implicature for you!

Nobody is correcting nobody -- and No body is correcting Any body if you mustn't!

Ian Crouch's Implicature

Speranza

Speranza

There was an interesting implicature by Steve Martin reported by Bruce Fretts at

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/arts/television/steve-martin-martin-short-netflix-comedy.html

In fact, the implicature is a triad and involves not just Fretts and Martin, but Short. Here is the passage.

First the reference,

Fretts, Bruce, "Steve Martin and Martin Short on friendship and what's truly funny."


Steve Martin and Martin Short on Friendship and What’s Truly Funny


Now the relevant passage:

Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.
SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
"you were just called" is hyperlinked. To what?
To:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/is-martin-short-the-greatest-talk-show-guest-of-all-time

A piece by Ian Grouch. 

Is Martin Short the Greatest Talk-Show Guest of All Time?


Reference:

Crouch, Ian. Is Martin Short the greatest talk-show guest of all time?

So Fretts is taking some Griceian liberties, because Crouch poses the question, er, in the erotetic mode, as Grice calls it.

So let's revise the NYT wording:

FRETTS: Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.

SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
Let's formalise that alla Frege:

FRETT's proposition:

(i) Short is one of the greatest late-night guests of all time. 
Short's 'correction' -- Short's proposition

(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guest of all time.

Martin's rebuke -- Martin's proposition:

(iii) Short is among the greatest late-time guests of all time.

Fretts:
"Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time."
-- by Ian Crouch. Although Crouch poses this as a question. The article seems to IMPLICATE an affirmative answer to the question in the title. Which leads to Fretts's proposition (i) above.

SHORT 
"Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”"
Leading to Short's proposition (ii)
(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guests of all time.
Note Short's emphasis on "not to correct you," since, alla Grice, he isn't -- at the level of what is said (if not implicated or disimplicated).


MARTIN 
"I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”"

Martin is right. He SHOULD read that article again (i.e. 'reread' it) and check Crouch's lingo.

In any case, consider again the logical form of (i), (ii), and (iii). Grice would say that they are all true at the level of what is said, if not implicated or disimplicated.

There's implicature for you!

Nobody is correcting nobody -- and No body is correcting Any body if you mustn't!

Steve Martin's Implicature

Speranza

There was an interesting implicature by Steve Martin reported by Bruce Fretts at

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/18/arts/television/steve-martin-martin-short-netflix-comedy.html

In fact, the implicature is a triad and involves not just Fretts and Martin, but Short. Here is the passage.

First the reference,

Fretts, Bruce, "Steve Martin and Martin Short on friendship and what's truly funny."


Steve Martin and Martin Short on Friendship and What’s Truly Funny


Now the relevant passage:

Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.
SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
"you were just called" is hyperlinked. To what?
To:

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/rabbit-holes/is-martin-short-the-greatest-talk-show-guest-of-all-time

A piece by Ian Grouch. 

Is Martin Short the Greatest Talk-Show Guest of All Time?


Reference:

Crouch, Ian. Is Martin Short the greatest talk-show guest of all time?

So Fretts is taking some Griceian liberties, because Crouch poses the question, er, in the erotetic mode, as Grice calls it.

So let's revise the NYT wording:

FRETTS: Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time.

SHORT Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”
MARTIN I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”
Let's formalise that alla Frege:

FRETT's proposition:

(i) Short is one of the greatest late-night guests of all time. 
Short's 'correction' -- Short's proposition

(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guest of all time.

Martin's rebuke -- Martin's proposition:

(iii) Short is among the greatest late-time guests of all time.

Fretts:
"Marty, you were just called one of the greatest late-night guests of all time."
-- by Ian Crouch. Although Crouch poses this as a question. The article seems to IMPLICATE an affirmative answer to the question in the title. Which leads to Fretts's proposition (i) above.

SHORT 
"Not to correct you, and it doesn’t matter, but it wasn’t “one of the greatest late-night guests of all time,” it was “the greatest.”"
Leading to Short's proposition (ii)
(ii) Short is the greatest late-night guests of all time.
Note Short's emphasis on "not to correct you," since, alla Grice, he isn't -- at the level of what is said (if not implicated or disimplicated).


MARTIN 
"I’d like to read that article again and see if it said “among the greatest.”"

Martin is right. He SHOULD read that article again (i.e. 'reread' it) and check Crouch's lingo.

In any case, consider again the logical form of (i), (ii), and (iii). Grice would say that they are all true at the level of what is said, if not implicated or disimplicated.

There's implicature for you!

Nobody is correcting nobody -- and No body is correcting Any body if you mustn't!