Grice wants to say that
Pegasus is identical with Pegasus.
This is true because Pegasus does not exist. He adds: "just as "Pegasus is identical with Bellerophon" is true because neither Pegasus nor Bellerophon exist".
But this is NOT yet too interesting.
Grice adds:
"To develop a representation of an INTERESTING weak notion of identity, one such that Pegasus will be identical with Pegasus but not with Belleropho, I think that one would need a system within which such psychological notions as 'it is believed that' are represented.
For Bellerophon was believed to be a rider.
Whereaas Pegasus was believed to be a ridee (indeed winged horse).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Insert "believe" in a sentence, and you have inserted...a ghost. While Im not down with the Churchlands, in a sense I would agree that "belief" is just commonplace"folk psychology. Now, there probably are "beliefs" but you (or Herr Grice) could not point to one...
ReplyDeletethe myth issue's a bit different. probably some ancients literally believed--thunder, and Zeus has spoken!. Then some fundamentalists think the same (of whatever sort...the Billy Bob Baptick sort-- saying "Gott works in mysterious ways" after an earthquake or tidal wave...) . Yet there are psychological elements to myths not easily demarcated by the logician, or phil. of lang, or scientist-behaviorist. There's no referent. But they have meaning, and it's not just haphazard, tho' perhaps not entirely ...rational. The Medusa for instance (and the medusa-slayer, Perseus). One could give an interpretation. But it's obviously not simply a matter of reference; the names (and myths) have meanings, though lacking reference--tho' at the same time I do not think (contra Quine) the meanings are merely synonymies, or equivalencies (or mathematical universals). While I wouldn't say the "Oedipus myth was true account of human behavior" or something those sorts of myths are akin to...types or...tropes, tho' that probably sounds a bit vague for analytical philosophasters. A similar situation holds for Hamlet, et al.
...for that matter, logicians generally disapprove of metaphors of any sort (or even analogies). Yet....even ord-lang types would grant (wouldn't they) that much human thinking proceeds via metaphors and/or analogies--not just analytical and synthetic "truths" (then, analogies might be read interpreted as synthetic...probably). Perhaps those are part of the Churchland's dreaded F-Psych. too. Nonetheless,part of the...Sprachspiel (whether greek myths or Shakespeare).
ReplyDeleteI agree. I am more optimistic about belief and may drop a post about that.
ReplyDelete