ECO ON PEIRCE **Part 3***27 Mar 2014 5:00 am OPEN TO REVISION & READ ORIGINAL -x- Pp. 20-1: “It is hard to define ‘primitiveness’ by distinguishing between analytical and synthetic properties, a distinction severely criticized by Willard V. Quine (“Two Dogmas of Empiricism” in FROM A LOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. Harvard,1953), in part because the notion of analyticalness is completely circular (if a proposition contained in the definition of a term is analytic it cannot be a criterion for establishing the appropriateness of a DICTIONARY definition)…¶ The possibility of positing a difference between “necessary” and “contingent” properties must also be excluded, because if it were necessary for a cat to be mammiferous and contingent for it to ‘meow’, then ALL “necessary” would mean is “analytic”.¶ It has been proposed that “finiteness” is a requirement for a packet of primitives . . . but it is precisely the cataloging of this finite number of semantic atoms that has become problematic.¶ It has been suggested that primitives are simple concepts, but it is difficult to define a simple concept . . . ¶ It has been suggested “primitives” depend on our experience of the world, or that there are (as Russell 1905 suggested) “object-words” whose meaning we learn directly by “ostention” (displaying, showing, pointing out?), and “dictionary-words” defined by other dictionary-words (tautology) – but Russell recognized “pentagram” is a “dictionary-word” for most speakers but an “object-word” for a child who grew up in a room decorated with pentagrams.¶ It was proposed the requirement of “adequacy” (“primitives” serve to define all words), but, if we consider as “primitives” sufficient to define the concept of “bachelor” features like HUMAN MALE ADULT UNMARRIED, why does it seem inadequate to call a Benedictine monk a bachelor? We would have to add other constrictions… and with that we introduce ENCYCLOPEDIC elements into our DICTIONARY.¶ The requirements of “independence” (primitives should not depend for their definition on other primitives), and ABSENCE OF FURTHER INTERPRETABILITY have been proposed, but not even HUMAN seems without further interpretability [21] if we consider the whole debate over abortion and cloning precisely on the subject of what it means to be human. In reality in any lexicon any term is potentially interpretable by means of other terms in the same lexicon, or other semantic devices, according to the criteria of INTERPRETANCE and UNLIMITED SEMIOSIS established by PEIRCE. ¶ Lastly, if “primitives” are rooted in our way of thinking, then the principle of UNIVERSALITY suggests itself. It is assuredly possible that certain experiences related to our bodies are universal, such as “above/below”, “eat/sleep”, “be born/die”, but in the first instance it is unthinkable that we can define all the objects and events in terms of these ideas, and, secondly, “universal” does not mean “primitive”, given that a universally understood concept such as “dying” needs to be further defined, as is demonstrated by debates on end-of-life decisions and the harvesting of organs.¶ In the face of these criticisms, the conviction has made headway, especially among the theorists of cognitive semantics, that linguistic competence is ALWAYS encyclopedic, and that in semantic representation no distinction can be made (except on a provisional basis and for the purpose of specific analysis) between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
