Bit of (Griceian) Notation

--- by JLS
------ for the GC

-- ANDY IN COMMENT, "Truly Understood?"

How are the concepts to which the uppercase words refer actually represented?

Good question. I wish Peacocke could answer! He is our expert in concepts qua contents of things -- vide "The Kontent of Kontent" by Kjoell, etc.

And not all content is conceptual. There is INTENTIONAL non-conceptual content, which is what matters most, because it's the SENSE proper, as when we say, "The sense of this" -- the sense datum that originated it (qua verificationists that we have to be in these areas).

-----

"How IS the concept to which ["alpha"] refers actually represented?"

This is a basic question.

Suppose I say "shaggy" (rather than "shag").

This, for Grice, is a concept. It refers to "all those (and only those) items which are hairy-coated)."

Yet, 'hairy-coated' is ANOTHER concept -- alpha'.

So how is "hairy-coated" represented?

Do we sense 'shaggy' AS 'hairy-coated'. I can imagine a boy who is aware of the use of 'shaggy' but is NOT aware of the idea of 'hair', 'coat', and thus of 'hairy-coated'. For this boy, I would have to explain 'hairy-coated' (qua concept, thus 'alpha') in terms of another concept which I trust he'll be endowed with, viz. the concept of shagginess.

The problem is that we never know if the child (or boy) HAS concepts. Or not.

----

"How are the concepts to which the uppercase words refer actually represented?"

Exactly. Take Carnap using "B" and "M" to mean 'bachelor' and 'married'. He wants uppercase words to stand for PREDICATES (praedikat-kalkuel). So he has

(x) Bx --> -Mx

I agree. But we need to know more. How is bachelorhood represented in the negation of the concept, singleness? One wonders.

Talk of 'represent' can only confuse here. We don't use 'represent' in natural English. We only use 'represent' in natural English to say, as Grice indicates: "This team surely did its duty in representing England"

Since England cannot engage in a game of cricket with Australia (Grice's example, WoW:RE) England needs a TEAM that will represent HER. Represent is a bad thing. Most things we can do we do not need representatives for. So when philosophers start to talk too profusely about 'representation' I take them to be cowards -- because they are NOT talking of 'represent' as for a transcategorial mistake ("England played cricket"). In strict considerations: it is false to say that "the team played cricket". "Grice played cricket", rather.

"How are the concepts to which the uppercase words refer actually represented?".

If we symbolise 'shaggy' by 'alpha' and 'hairy-coated' by 'alpha'" the point is NEVER to have to refer to language. As Grice says, in his final sentence to WoW:6 which has the "e" symbol of set-theory:

"Any extensionalist HAS to deal"

-- he optimistically or naively has it --

"with the problem of allowing for
a transition from an extensional to a
nonextensional language; and it is BY NO MEANS OBVIOUS
TO ME that intenSionality can be explained
ONLY via the idea of concealed references
to language -- and so presupposes the concepts
in terms of which the use of language has to be
understood."

So we are aware, as theorists, that the choice of "alpha" and "alpha'" is language-neutral, and that we are not claiming that these features (in the strict philosophical use of 'feature' here, to stand for 'predicate' if you must) are language-relative, because they are not.

Why? Well, cats figure in prominently again. Because while Grice accepts that intenSionality is basic, he is conscious that it's only contigent that

"the psychological concepts which, in my view,
are NEEDED for the formulation of an adequate
theory of language may NOT be among the
most primitive or fundamental psychological
concepts -- like those which apply not only
to human beings but also to quite lowly animals --."

--- said VERY smugly -- I love him!

--- But that's neither here, nor there. So there. Or here, if you must.