Discussion:
Back    All discussions

2013-08-09
Indian and Western Philosophy

Methodologically speaking, I wonder why Matilal and S's article has not been enough for  further studies of this sort to be the rule on Mind (and other philosophical journals). Does this failure depend on their style? (Or should we just start working as a task-force and submit many articles of this kind?)


2013-08-22
Indian and Western Philosophy
Reply to Elisa Freschi
Id like to read more in here about "the context principle". I tried your link but I couldnt get access.Meanings of the constituents of a text can change with change of its context and the matter was not to my knowledge exhaustively adressed by Frege. (Or Russell)   In my opinion there can be no "Modern Semantics" without a proper treatmeant of meaning , both in isolation and relative to varying contexts.

An amusing contextual example?
Suppose you want to translate "This is English" into a foreign language ... Then if you translate word for word you will get a FALSE foreign sentence claiming it is an English sentence. To translate the "internal"meaning of "This is English" you can substitute "English" for the selected foreign language"... but ... is a foreign sentence claiming it is some foreign sentence really a correct translation of "This is English."? 






2013-08-22
Indian and Western Philosophy
Reply to Sigurd Vojnov
Thanks for the nice example, which highlights a lot about the pragmatics of speech-acts (even more, I would say, than about the context principle).

As for the context principle, are you talking about its Indian or Western version? Or about its discussion by Matilal and Sen? If you drop me a line on my ancient (http://elisafreschi.blogspot.com) or new (same, but without blogspot) blog, I can send you some further documents.
Matilal and Sen (see my first comment on this article) tend to attribute the context principle to Russell, too, but I think they might be over-interpreting him. As for Frege, he adopted some form of it (see my first comment), but might have changed his mind by the time he formulated the Bedeutung-Sinn opposition or might have not been interested in elaborating a general picture of language. Alternatively, Dummett could be right in his interpretation of Frege, and then we just have to distinguish the listener's and the producer's side of the problem in Frege.

2013-09-10
Indian and Western Philosophy
Reply to Elisa Freschi
Try not restricting ideas by their versions; 
Understand objects in "isolation" as constituted by their constituents. 

(The Compositional Perspective.)

Related to contexts a compositional object may split into versions 
depending on if and how the context interferes with the object. 
In my "amusing example" the context can change truth into falsehood, 
which is drastic interference indeed. 

(The Contextual Perspective.)

What made your post interesting (besides your cultural bridging project) is the pointing out of the problem of  

Contextual Interference On Compositional Meaning

Axioms in a system MAY interfere with each other.                                                                                                                 And then the system is an interfering context relative to its constituents.
I think attention  should be given to this phenomenon... 
Here below is the Grand Traditional Example Of Contextual Interference. 
We have two objects interfering with each other in an disastrious manner:


(1) Axiom 1 is not true.
(2) Axiom 1 = " Axiom 1 is not true."


Its an old truth that something is wrong in the system above. 
The problem is to explain why its a logical error to draw the conlusion:


(3) "Axiom 1 is not true." is not true.