2002

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1241  Monday, 6 May 2002

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 03 May 2002 11:08:54 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[2]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 May 2002 19:19:48 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1189 Re: Hamlets and Movies

[3]     From:   Gabriel Egan <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 12:52:18 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[4]     From:   Bill Arnold <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 21:09:11 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1204 Re: Movies and Other Issues

[5]     From:   Martin Steward <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Friday, 3 May 2002 17:38:54 +0100
        Subj:   SHK 13.1206 Accents, Truths, Breathing

[6]     From:   Jane Drake Brody <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Saturday, 4 May 2002 11:25:42 EDT
        Subj:   Truth and Language


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Friday, 03 May 2002 11:08:54 -0700
Subject: 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1229 Re: Movies and Other Issues

Martin Steward suggests that

>We might say, "There are no horses" when standing in a field devoid of horses.
>But that does not mean that we are saying "There are NO horses" (i.e.
>there is no such thing-in-the-world as a horse). By the same token, we
>might say, "There are horses" even in a field devoid of horses. The
>point is, we have an idea of what a horse is, and so even if we never
>saw one again, we could confidently say that "There are horses." The
>same applies to universal truth.

Not really.  A 'universal truth' would by definition be everywhere or
nowhere.  A local universal truth is impossible.  It's either universal
or local, but it can't logically be both.

An earlier version of a similar paradox (from Plato, I believe) went
something like this:  "I am Cretan.  All Cretans are liars".  The word
'all' is what makes the claim into a paradox.  If the speaker simply
said "Many Cretans are liars" or "My neighbours are all liars", then he
wouldn't be including himself in the statement, which is what produces
the paradox.

>The place harbouring universal truth
>might actually only be harbouring the idea of universal truth. And an
>idea is not the same thing as the thing-in-itself.

I'm not sure if this holds as well for universal truth as for horses.
One can have an idea of a horse with no horses existing physically in
our world.  A universal truth is itself an idea, however, so it can't be
checked against something extant "out there".  To have its idea is to
have it.

Cheers,
Se 

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.