名字  |
內容 |
FeiYan
2006-12-03 23:33:16
|
Have you ever read the article "In Defense of a Dogma" by Grice & Strawson [1956] ?
|
咁都得?
2006-12-03 21:31:46
|
//李生個師父Carnap//
賓雞造謠!
|
Fai
2006-12-03 17:00:22
|
//最怕睇得明的字，但又睇唔明實在既意思。//
"Two Dogmas of Empiricism" 分六大段:
1. BACKGROUND FOR ANALYTICITY
II. DEFINITION
III. INTERCHANGEABILITY
IV. SEMANTICAL RULES
V. THE VERIFICATION THEORY AND REDUCTIONISM
VI. EMPIRICISM WITHOUT THE DOGMAS
第一段是分析性的背景.
第二、三、四段是批判析合區分.
第五段是批判意義和還原論.
第六段是介紹整體論.
Quine話, 析合區分不成立, 因為:
1. 用定義說明同義性不成立。
DEFINITION:.... In formal and informal work alike, thus, we find that definition -- except in the extreme case of the explicitly conventional introduction of new notation -- hinges on prior relationships of synonymy. Recognizing then that the notation of definition does not hold the key to synonymy and analyticity, let us look further into synonymy and say no more of definition.
2. 用保全真值的可替換性來說明同義性不成立。
INTERCHANGEABILITY:...Certain technical questions arise, indeed, over cases of ambiguity or homonymy; let us not pause for them, however, for we are already digressing. Let us rather turn our backs on the problem of synonymy and address ourselves anew to that of analyticity.
3. 用語義規則來說明分析性不成立。
SEMANTICAL RULES:...Semantical rules determining the analytic statements of an artificial language are of interest only in so far as we already understand the notion of analyticity; they are of no help in gaining this understanding. ...
簡單D講, 就係析合區分不成立.
//真係你問佢世衛，佢問你：WHO？//
宜家唔係問WHO既時候,而係問HOW既時候.
How do you argue against Quine?
Please give solid reasons.
Quine 係哲學泰斗, 連李生個師父Carnap都擊斃.
好Sharp!
|
StrangerQ
2006-11-30 00:00:17
|
妙！
^^
|
阿爸
2006-11-29 18:46:28
|
Fai
最怕睇得明的字，但又睇唔明實在既意思。
評論一句，忽然引一堆野，又評論一下，其實你想表達咩呢？
除非用來安慰人心，「以偏概全」幾時都唔好啦，權威與否無關嘛！？
//無用時就"話之你"係權威//係好正常丫。
平日無事無幹，有無「世衛」呢個權威組織都無人記得啦！
真係你問佢世衛，佢問你：WHO？
|
 oriole
2006-11-29 13:01:35
|
//權威人士不一定正確，但不能因此就全盤否定權威人士。
現代社會也有許多權威組織、權威認可，難道我們可以視若無睹嗎？//
誰全盤否定權威人士？誰對權威組織(？)、權威認可(？)視若無睹？
|
Fai
2006-11-27 11:57:34
|
不應隨便"話之你"
oriole:
//
不如你地去睇下
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
//
節錄:
Modern empiricism has been conditioned in large part by two dogmas. One is a belief in some fundamental cleavage between truths which are analytic, or grounded in meanings independently of matters of fact and truths which are synthetic, or grounded in fact. The other dogma is reductionism....Both dogmas, I shall argue, are ill founded. One effect of abandoning them is, as we shall see, a blurring of the supposed boundary between speculative metaphysics and natural science. Another effect is a shift toward pragmatism...
But, for all its a priori reasonableness, a boundary between analytic and synthetic statement simply has not been drawn. That there is such a distinction to be drawn at all is an unempirical dogma of empiricists, a metaphysical article of faith....
權威人士不一定正確，但不能因此就全盤否定權威人士。
現代社會也有許多權威組織、權威認可，難道我們可以視若無睹嗎？
|
lauhk
2006-11-24 15:52:17
|
咁就改為:
有用時就(要你)信權威.
無用時就"話之你"係權威.
|
老餅
2006-11-24 11:53:43
|
壇經有個故仔講不落因果要改為𣎴昧因果.
你呢句要唔要改一改? //
聽講壇經係後人老作既！
老作既野
你中意啦！
|
lauhk
2006-11-24 05:49:06
|
//..我的教條是不信權威！..//
壇經有個故仔講不落因果要改為𣎴昧因果.
你呢句要唔要改一改?
|
oriole
2006-11-24 02:06:28
|
我成日覺得Quine見到《Two Dogmas of Empiricism》咁大名氣，係會陰陰咀笑既。
|
老餅
2006-11-14 16:05:53
|
我的教條是不信小孩^^ //
我的教條是不信權威！
|
阿牛
2006-11-13 23:37:00
|
// 小孩
2006-11-13 11:33:56 經驗論的兩個教條
佢抬Quine出來，想"片低"李生的基要區分和語害架構。
Quine＜經驗論的兩個教條＞的論證很精密，分析家Davidson等都追隨Quine。
李生可能會被Quine"砍死 //
我的教條是不信小孩^^
|
東
2006-11-13 23:30:39
|
呢度究唔係直排啦.
|
oriole
2006-11-13 23:25:43
|
不如你地去睇下
Two Dogmas of Empiricism
http://www.ditext.com/quine/quine.html
|
StrangerQ
2006-11-13 13:20:32
|
Quine的立論技巧很精，篇文d字也排得很密，不過由於不是直排，所以不建議文哥去看。
|
oriole
2006-11-13 12:57:07
|
//Quine＜經驗論的兩個教條＞的論證很精密//
^^"
|
阿爸
2006-11-13 12:31:13
|
//講講佢論證幾精密//
對一個小孩來講，未免太苛刻喇！
---
小孩（子），你不如把可能//"砍死"//李先生//基要區分和語害架構//相關部份，簡簡單單打段字上來俾大家睇下啦！
|
C&P
2006-11-13 12:24:02
|
狡
//李生可能會被Quine"砍死" //
莾托可能.
|
........
2006-11-13 12:00:47
|
不如請小孩簡略講講佢論證幾精密好唔好?
|
