On Tue., Feb. 19, 2019, 23:12 ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote:

> On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 03:56 +0000, James Cook wrote:
> > Apathy. I specify Falsifian and G.
> >
> > I initiate a Call for Judgement, specifying the statement: "Falsifian
> > and G won the game."
> >
> > Here are our arguments:
> >
> > 1. I "published", or "announced", the following: "Apathy", in this
> >    message. (I also sent a separate message that just says "Apathy",
> >    in case anyone insists it has to be by itself in a message for
> >    me to "publish" it.)
>
> Arguments: Declaring Apathy is not the same thing linguistically as
> declaring "Apathy", much the same way as sending a message with text
> "the Herald's Report" is not the same thing as publishing the Herald's
> Report. There's a use/mention distinction issue here.
>
> If a scam along these lines worked, the required declaration would have
> to express apathy the concept, not "apathy" the word. Something like "I
> am apathetic." might potentially work, but it's a bit of a stretch.
>
> --
> ais523
>

That's a good point. Though if I want to say I'm feeling apathetic,
"Apathy." seems like one way to say it. "Why didn't you go into work
today?" "Apathy." You might even day I was too apathetic to bother to find
some other way to express apathy.

I do agree that it feels like a stretch, but I think the arguments mostly
make sense. I'm not really sure.

James

>

Reply via email to