Friday, December 11, 2009

off the cuff.

Suppose:
(1) All propositions are sentences.
(2) All sentences are linguistic (i.e., in language).
(3) All representations must represent non-representations.
Why (3)? Because:
(4) (premise for (3)): There cannot be a representation without that which is represented,
and,
(5) (premise for (3)): whatever is represented is not itself a representation.

Suppose:
(6) All language is representational.
by (6),
(7) (6) represents itself.
by (7) and (3),
(8) (6) is not a representation.
Therefore,
(9) (6) is false.

I wanted this to be a reductio of (1). I am somewhat dubious about (3).

4 Comments:

Blogger brianna. said...

What kinds of things are considered "non-representational'?

Also, can you fill in the blanks for me on the jump from 7 (that 6 represents itself) to 8 (that 6 is not a representation). How does (3) help this cross over?

8:08 PM  
Blogger Derek said...

My cat, Atra, doesn't represent anything. She is non-representational. A picture of her is representational; the phrase "My cat" and the words "Atra", "She", and "her" in this paragraph are representational in some sense.. et cetera. The idea with (3): no cat, no representations of cat, et cetera.

(6) says that "all language is representational". If (6) is true, then the phrase "all language is representational" represents something, since it too is "in language." Well, if (3) is right, then whatever (6) represents (namely itself) must itself be a non-representation, because "All representations must represent non-representations." And so on, etc.

3:31 AM  
Blogger brianna. said...

cool.

9:56 AM  
Blogger BIBLIST said...

My Prof. Balaguer has a new book "Free Will as an Open Scientific Problem"-MIT

9:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License.