display all the ideas for this combination of philosophers
17 ideas
18036 | A sentence can be meaningful, and yet lack a truth value [Magidor] |
Full Idea: 'That is red' in a context where the demonstrative fails to refer is truth-valueless, despite being meaningful, as is 'the queen of France in 2010 is bald'. ...The claim that some sentences are meaningful but truth-valueless is, then, widely accepted. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 4.1) | |
A reaction: The lack of truth value is usually because of reference failure. It is best to say the words are meaningful, but no proposition is expressed. |
18051 | In the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are assumed in a context, for successful assertion [Magidor] |
Full Idea: According to the pragmatic approach, presuppositions are constraints on the context: if a sentence s generates a presupposition p, an assertion of s cannot proceed smoothly unless the context already entails p (p is taken for granted). | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.2) | |
A reaction: She credits Stalnaker for this approach. There is a choice between the presuppositions being largely driven by internal features of the sentence, or by external features of context. You may not know the context of some statements. |
18043 | The infelicitiousness of trivial truth is explained by uninformativeness, or a static context-set [Magidor] |
Full Idea: In Grice's theory if a sentence is trivially true, asserting it would violate the maxim of quantity. For Stalnaker, if p is trivially true, it involves no update to the context-set, and is thus pointless. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.2) | |
A reaction: 'Let us remind ourselves, before we proceed, of the following trivial truth: p'. |
18042 | The infelicitiousness of trivial falsity is explained by expectations, or the loss of a context-set [Magidor] |
Full Idea: In Grice's theory if a sentence is trivially false, asserting it would violate the maxim of quality. For Stalnaker if p is trivially false, removing all worlds incompatible with p would result in an empty context-set, preventing any further communication. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.2) | |
A reaction: [compressed] I'm not sure whether we need to 'explain' the inappropriateness of uttering trivial falsities. I take the main rule of conversation to be 'don't be boring', but we all violate that. |
18050 | If both s and not-s entail a sentence p, then p is a presupposition [Magidor] |
Full Idea: In the traditional account, a sentence s presupposes p if and only if both s and ¬s entail p. Standardly, this entails that if s presupposes p, then whenever p is false, s must be neither true nor false. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.2) | |
A reaction: 'I'm looking down on the garden' presupposes 'I'm upstairs'. Why would 'I'm not looking down on the garden' entail 'I'm upstairs'? I seem to have missed something. |
18047 | A presupposition is what makes an utterance sound wrong if it is not assumed? [Magidor] |
Full Idea: The most obvious test for presupposition would be this: if s generates the presupposition p, then an utterance of s would be infelicitous, unless p is taken for granted by participants in the conversation. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.1.1) | |
A reaction: The principle of charity seems to be involved here - that we try to make people's utterances sound right, so we add in the presuppositions which would achieve that. The problem, she says, is that the infelicity may have other causes. |
18048 | A test for presupposition would be if it provoked 'hey wait a minute - I have no idea that....' [Magidor] |
Full Idea: A proposed test for presupposition is the 'Hey, wait a minute' test. S presupposes that p, just in case it would be felictious to respond to an utterance of s with something like 'Hey, wait a minute - I had not idea that p!'. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.1.2) | |
A reaction: [K. Von Finkel 2004 made the suggestion] That is, you think 'hm ...this statement seems to presuppose p'. She says the suggestion vastly over-generates possible presuppositions - unlikely ones, as well as the obvious ones. |
18049 | The best tests for presupposition are projecting it to negation, conditional, conjunction, questions [Magidor] |
Full Idea: The most robust tests for presupposition are the projection tests. If s presupposes p, then ¬s does too. If s1 presupposes p, then 'if s1 then s2' presupposes p. If s1 presupposes p, then 's1 and s2' presupposes p. If s presupposes p, then 's?' does too. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.1.3) | |
A reaction: [compressed] She also discusses quantifiers. In other words, the presupposition remains stable through various transformations of the underlying proposition. |
18054 | Why do certain words trigger presuppositions? [Magidor] |
Full Idea: We can ask why a range of lexical items (e.g. 'stop' or 'know') trigger the presuppositions they do. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 5.3.2) | |
A reaction: I'm not sure whether we'll get an answer, but I would approach the question by thinking about mental files. |
18022 | Metaphors tend to involve category mistakes, by joining disjoint domains [Magidor] |
Full Idea: The fact that most metaphors involve category mistakes is not a coincidence. …A big part of them is to do with connecting objects and properties that normally seem to belong to disjoint domains. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Metaphysica poets took disjoint domains and 'yoked them together by violence', according to Dr Johnson. |
18023 | Theories of metaphor divide over whether they must have literal meanings [Magidor] |
Full Idea: There are theories of metaphors that require them to have literal meanings in order to achieve their metaphorical purpose, and those that do not. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: I take almost any string of proper language to have literal meaning (for compositional reasons), even if the end result is somewhat ridiculous. 'Churchill was a lion' obviously has literal meaning. And so does 'Churchill was a transcendental number'. |
18024 | One theory says metaphors mean the same as the corresponding simile [Magidor] |
Full Idea: On standard versions of the simile theory of metaphors, they mean the same as the corresponding simile. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Magidor points out that this allows the metaphor to work while being meaningless, since all the work is done by the perfectly meaningful simile. But the metaphor must at least mean enough to indicate what the simile is. |
18027 | Metaphors as substitutes for the literal misses one predicate varying with context [Magidor] |
Full Idea: A problem with the substitution view of metaphors is that the same predicate can have very different metaphorical contributions in different contexts. Consider 'Juliet is the sun' uttered by Romeo, and 'Stalin is the sun' from a devoted communist. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: The substitution view never looked good (especially if you like poetry), and now it looks a lot worse. |
18025 | The simile view of metaphors removes their magic, and won't explain why we use them [Magidor] |
Full Idea: The simile theory of metaphors makes them too easy to figure out, when they cannot be paraphrased in literal terms, …and it does not explain why we use metaphors as well as similes. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: [She cites Davidson for these points] They might just be similes with the added frisson of leaving out 'like', so that they seem at first to be false, until you work out the simile and see their truth. |
18026 | Maybe a metaphor is just a substitute for what is intended literally, like 'icy' for 'unemotional' [Magidor] |
Full Idea: According to the substitution view of metaphors, a word used metaphorically is merely a substitute for another word or phrase that expresses the same meaning literally. Thus 'John is an ice-cube' is a substitute for 'John is cruel and unemotional'. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: This seems to capture the denotation but miss the connotation. Whoever came up with this theory didn't read much poetry. |
18028 | Gricean theories of metaphor involve conversational implicatures based on literal meanings [Magidor] |
Full Idea: Gricean theories of metaphor …assume that conversational implicatures are generated via literal contents, and hence that a sentence cannot generate an implicature without being literally meaningful. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: Magidor gives not details of such theories, but presumably the metaphor is all in the speaker's intention, which is parasitic on the wayward literal meaning, as in cases of irony. |
18029 | Non-cognitivist views of metaphor says there are no metaphorical meanings, just effects of the literal [Magidor] |
Full Idea: According to non-cognitivists there is no such thing as metaphorical meaning. …The effects on the hearer are induced directly via the literal meaning of the metaphor. | |
From: Ofra Magidor (Category Mistakes [2013], 3.5) | |
A reaction: [This is said to be Davidson's view] I wonder how many people defended some explicit 'metaphorical meaning', as opposed to connotations that accumulate as you take in the metaphor? Any second meaning is just a further literal meaning. |