WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


BPFK Section: gadri

1. Maxims are a bad place to fight this fight sincew maxims tend to talk about aall, but also always have unmentioned exceptions, i.e., are not really about all at all. On the other hand, generic {lo} does seem to miss some of the apparent moral force of a maxim by being honest about what is covered (though possibly allowing too much).

2. Note that {ei} creates an intensional context. Within that context, however, the same rules apply as outside it, whatever they are. And, of course, maxims precisely are not derived from observation but proponded against observation (no one tells kids they ought to foregive their elders if they already do).
3. Yes, but that doesn't connect with quantifiers more than minimally; the next step — that if only one lion does it then... already is irrelevant.

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:

>--- xod wrote:
> =20
>
>>Jorge Llamb=3DEDas wrote:
>> =20
>>
>>>What does {ei lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu} mean according to you?
>>> =20
>>>
>>I must interpret it extensionally, resulting to "some children...some=3D=
20
>>adults", unchanged from the old-lo, and not a really as a maxim=3D20
>>*because* of it's lack of ro.=20
>> =20
>>
>
>Ok, but that's not the proposed lo. The proposed lo does not have=20
>a hidden quantifier that you must glork from context. All the
>sentence says, with the proposed lo, is:
>
>"It should be so that: CHILDREN forgive ADULTS"
>
>Nothing more. That's all the statement says. How you take that to
>particular instances is up to you, it is not contained in the=20
>sentence.=20
>


1. How can it not be there from context? Part of the context of lo is that
the speaker chose to use lo instead of some other gadri. Given that
maxims are supposed to apply universally, and given that the speaker
avoided ro, and given that the speaker is being cooperative, we must
conclude that it's not a maxim. I am not saying that lo in this case is
incorrect, but that it is unhelpful.



>It says nothing about how many children should do what
>to how many adults. If you want, you can add precision in different
>ways. One way is to add universal quantifiers to one or both
>terms. Another way is to add tense for example:
>
> ei roroiku fe'eroroiku lo verba cu fraxu lo makcu prenu
> Everytime and everywhere children should forgive adults.
>
> =20
>
>>And the hypotheticality given by .ei might=3D20
>>be enough to avoid nerdy criticism of "all". I used to think that the=3D=
20
>>non-specificity of lo forced the statement to apply to the entire type,=
=3D20
>>but now I don't.
>> =20
>>
>
>The non-specificity of lo doesn't force anything about instances.
>It is simply not a statement about instances.
> =20
>


2.I have a hard time not reducing lo to an extensional claim in an
extensional context such as this. Particularly, when the statement
really should be derived from observations and falsifiable by other
observations. 3.Surely you agree that if NO lions hunt at night, then this
non-extensional claim would be false, yes?



--=20
Motorists honked in celebration in this Ramadi as news spread of the=20
assassination of the president of the Iraqi Governing Council Ezzidin Sal=
im=20
Monday. "The GC is nothing," one man shouted. "They are not the Governing=
=20
Council. They are the Prostitution Council."




Maxims are a bad plce to fight this fight