jriggenbach

And if we acknowledge, as you just did, that people do say things that do not accurately reflect their intentions, then how in Galt's name can anyone possibly claim the status of "knowledge" for whatever asinine crap is inferred from an individual's "speech acts" by the practitioners of "linguistic pragmatics"? But the issue knowledge versus belief is not primary in the topic being discussed here. Like R. Campbell said, many aspects of speech acts are themselves conventionalized. So when Jane enters a cold room with the window open and makes the declarative sentence "It's cold in here", possibly accompanied by a facial expression conveying discomfort, one can infer from this speech act that she wants the situation to be changed. You would infer the same. I assume you would not ruminate over it, telling yourself "I have no way of knowing definitely what Jane means to imply." Jane could of course also have chosen a more direct speech act like "Could somebody please shut the window?" The "no rocket science" aspect here lies in the objective fact that we humans can use a (often conventionalized) repertoire of speech acts in which for example declarative sentences convey messages going beyond the pure declaration. That's what the discussion was about. So when Bobby Blunt, in a heated forum debate, calls his debate oponent Polly Polite a "silly goose", and Polly replies: "This is an insult", it allows the interpretation that this is a warning sign on Polly's part directed at Bobby, telling him has transgressed a boundary of civility and that she wants him to stop. Polly could also choose the more direct "Stop insulting me!" of course, but it is not necessary for the communication process to function that Polly use the direct form. Bobby will get the message, whether it is in direct or indirect form. If Bobby has a sarcastic streak, he could use Polly's comment to make another jab at her, pretending to take her statement literally. Bobby: "Of course "silly goose" is an insult. What do you think it is? A bunch of roses?" Comedians often operate that way by ignoring those 'indirect messages' in declarative sentences. But in everyday situations, we are usually pretty good at decoding the messages the communication partner wants to convey. Of course there also exist situations, as R. Campbell has pointed out, where the speech act is not in accord with a speaker's actual thinking. Lies fall into that category. But the fact that people can lie need not make us so suspicious to a point of automatically questioning any communication process as possibly being "inauthentic". Suppose your friend tells you he's going to pick you up by car at 8 pm, I assume you won't rack your brain in doubt and say "I have no way of knowing whether what he said is true." I'm impressed by your determination to believe what you want to believe and by your invincible refusal to see the point. My hat is off to you. JR

There could be nothing more important than watching Right Wing television news. It is, after all, ignorant Right Wingers who, with their passionate devotion to individual freedom, will lead us back to the way America used to be. Fervently, JR

A little too subtle for my explicit brain, actually. It's startling to encounter thinking even more deviant than my own. There must be some mistake here, Dennis. You have no "thinking." The activity in your brain that you have always believed was "thinking" is in fact "a kind of insensate sweating, like that of a kidney." Helpfully, JR

Been looking in the mirror again, Dennis? JR

Let's just say for sake of argument that 0% have been proper, that the best that's ever happened is that people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently), but in fact it never really was trying, ergo the 0%. Now let me ask you a question. How often have you actually been rational, as opposed to merely proclaiming that you are? 20% of the time? 10%? 0%? Shayne The "best" thing that's ever happened is that "people imagined their government to be trying to fulfill a proper role (however incompetently)"? That's the best thing that's ever happened? That people became delusional about the State? What was the worst thing? JR

JR believes that comma use is a largely optional matter. Some writers use them far more often than others. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about using lots of commas, though I personally prefer a style in which they are minimized. And the only comments you will ever hear from me about Strunk & White will be satirical, having to do with its absurdly inflated reputation. It's useful in many ways for a beginning writer, but even then should be taken with about a half pound of salt. The fact that E. B. White wrote in a certain style does not mean that style should be emulated by everyone. There's more than one way to write any given thing. It's Phil who's obsessed with the supposed wisdom of Strunk & White. JR

And if we acknowledge, as you just did, that people do say things that do not accurately reflect their intentions, then how in Galt's name can anyone possibly claim the status of "knowledge" for whatever asinine crap is inferred from an individual's "speech acts" by the practitioners of "linguistic pragmatics"? Really, folks, is this rocket science? Or is the problem here merely the age-old one that the human animal characteristically wants to claim to know far more than s/he actually does and wants to claim the status of "knowledge" for what is really only belief? JR

I think you know that it has. JR

What "enterprises" are "convicted murderers" continuing to run from their cells? Why should a guard be prosecuted for supplying a cel phone to a willing customer? Are we endorsing the laws against drug dealing (working as an unlicensed pharmacist) here? And I assume you mean, judging from your usual posts, that government is to be feared unless it's run by Republicans. JR

As Ludwig von Mises has pointed out, George, division of labor is an essential component of a prosperous society. Each of us specializes in the work that he is best equipped to do. Some of us are better equipped to whine about "incivility" than to contribute substantive posts. Helpfully, JR

Ad hominem sounds 'erudite' and may thus be used by a speaker to create a psychological distance to an attacker perceived as crude. Suppose Bobby Blunt starts calling Polly Polite vulgar names in a forum debate, Polly might reply: "In case you have forgotten about it, here is a link to the TOS of this forum. It might interest you what it says about ad hominem attacks there." Nicely put. Translation into plain English: The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading. Helpfully, JR Requires absolutely no supernatural powers. When my husband tells me "Here is the bill from the plumber", the implication of the speech act is that I'm to handle it (the financial paperwork being my job). So you're unable to detect the difference between knowledge and a guess that's probably correct. Why am I not surprised? JR

Translation into plain English: The linguistic discipline of pragmatics focuses on mind reading. Helpfully, JR

Thanks, Ted. But you are the only poster I have ever seen on Objectivist Living who, when confronted with the reality of the destruction of a country and the mass murder of its citizens, responds by telling cheap jokes, as though this were somehow something to laugh about. You are one sick, twisted sub-species of humanity. Martin More "sick, twisted sub-species" on video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_9ECWIaIoY&feature=related It just doesn't get any lower or more despicable than this. Thanks so much for helping us innocent souls to see the depravity and evil that lurks all around us. It's like running smack into a wall, isn't it Martin? A wall of implacable, invincible stupidity. JR

He keeps such a long 'sentence' going by substituting commas for full stops. It is not an actual complex sentence with a string of dependent clauses. Dickens is a piker. Here is a real sentence form chapter 42 of Melville's Moby Dick: Though in many natural objects, whiteness refiningly enhances beauty, as if imparting some special virtue of its own, as in marbles, japonicas, and pearls; and though various nations have in some way recognised a certain royal pre-eminence in this hue; even the barbaric, grand old kings of Pegu placing the title 'Lord of the White Elephants' above all their other magniloquent ascriptions of dominion; and the modern kings of Siam unfurling the same snow-white quadruped in the royal standard; and the Hanoverian flag bearing the one figure of a snow-white charger; and the great Austrian Empire, Caesarian, heir to overlording Rome, having for the imperial color the same imperial hue; and though this pre-eminence in it applies to the human race itself, giving the white man ideal mastership over every dusky tribe; and though, besides all this, whiteness has been even made significant of gladness, for among the Romans a white stone marked a joyful day; and though in other mortal sympathies and symbolizings, this same hue is made the emblem of many touching, noble things -- the innocence of brides, the benignity of age; though among the Red Men of America the giving of the white belt of wampum was the deepest pledge of honor; though in many climes, whiteness typifies the majesty of Justice in the ermine of the Judge, and contributes to the daily state of kings and queens drawn by milk-white steeds; though even in the higher mysteries of the most august religions it has been made the symbol of the divine spotlessness and power; by the Persian fire worshippers, the white forked flame being held the holiest on the altar; and in the Greek mythologies, Great Jove himself made incarnate in a snow-white bull; and though to the noble Iroquois, the midwinter sacrifice of the sacred White Dog was by far the holiest festival of their theology, that spotless, faithful creature being held the purest envoy they could send to the Great Spirit with the annual tidings of their own fidelity; and though directly from the Latin word for white, all Christian priests derive the name of one part of their sacred vesture, the alb or tunic, worn beneath the cassock; and though among the holy pomps of the Romish faith, white is specially employed in the celebration of the Passion of our Lord; though in the Vision of St. John, white robes are given to the redeemed, and the four- and-twenty elders stand clothed in white before the great white throne, and the Holy One that sitteth there white like wool; yet for all these accumulated associations, with whatever is sweet, and honorable, and sublime, there yet lurks an elusive something in the innermost idea of this hue, which strikes more of panic to the soul than that redness which affrights in blood. Outstanding sentence. Do you know Friedrich Dürrenmatt's 1986 novel Der Auftrag (The 1988 English translation was entitled The Assignment: Or, on the Observing of the Observer of the Observers)? Each of its 24 chapters is a single sentence. JR

It is quite appropriate for someone confronted by a tiresome scold like Billy Civility to exclaim in exasperation, "Why, what an utter ass you are!" Further, when confronted by someone whose grasp of the concept "argument" is so defective that the "case" he makes for his views is utterly incoherent - little better, really than a string of unconnected words, broken here and there by capital letters and periods so as to resemble sentences - it is quite appropriate to focus one's attention and one's remarks on the shortcomings of such an "opponent" rather than wasting time with his "presentation." JR

If duly elected and with a genuine "electoral mandate" to move towards laissez faire? I think that's a fantasy. You can't beat the house when the house sets the odds; you will always end up losing. Politics is a rigged game. The rules of the games are set by the ruling class to insure that, no matter who is nominally elected to office, they will always win and we will always lose. We can't beat them by playing their game. Politics is a bottomless sewer draining the energy of anyone who participates in it. If liberty is ever to be achieved, it will be achieved from the bottom up, not the top down, by a critical mass of people who have figured out how to ignore the state and to replace its functions with voluntary, market based institutions. I am not optimistic enough to expect that this will happen during my lifetime, but it will ultimately happen either this way or not at all. Getting an objectivist/libertarian god elected president of the United States in order to turn the US into a libertarian paradise is a prospect no more real than Santa Claus. Martin You speak the truth, Martin. Those who speak the truth aren't terribly popular around here (fantasies about checks and balances, the Republican Party, and Glenn Beck are far more widely acclaimed), but there are a few of us who do appreciate seeing it (the truth) on our screens. Bravo! JR Why do I imagine that sounding like it was said by Burgess Meredith as the Penguin to Cesar Romero as the Joker? Your abject stupidity is my guess. JR

If duly elected and with a genuine "electoral mandate" to move towards laissez faire? I think that's a fantasy. You can't beat the house when the house sets the odds; you will always end up losing. Politics is a rigged game. The rules of the games are set by the ruling class to insure that, no matter who is nominally elected to office, they will always win and we will always lose. We can't beat them by playing their game. Politics is a bottomless sewer draining the energy of anyone who participates in it. If liberty is ever to be achieved, it will be achieved from the bottom up, not the top down, by a critical mass of people who have figured out how to ignore the state and to replace its functions with voluntary, market based institutions. I am not optimistic enough to expect that this will happen during my lifetime, but it will ultimately happen either this way or not at all. Getting an objectivist/libertarian god elected president of the United States in order to turn the US into a libertarian paradise is a prospect no more real than Santa Claus. Martin You speak the truth, Martin. Those who speak the truth aren't terribly popular around here (fantasies about checks and balances, the Republican Party, and Glenn Beck are far more widely acclaimed), but there are a few of us who do appreciate seeing it (the truth) on our screens. Bravo! JR

I "must enter a post," it says. I laugh up my sleeve. I will not be railroaded into entering a post when I'm of no mind to enter one. I defy this software! JR

If duly elected and with a genuine "electoral mandate" to move towards laissez faire? Did they have elected "public officials" in Galt's Gulch? JR

Limited constitutional government . . . blah, blah, blah . . . checks and balances . . . blah, blah, blah . . . bullies . . . blah, blah, blah . . . hate America first . . . blah, blah, blah . . . "competing governments" . . . blah, blah, blah . . . Glenn Beck . . . blah, blah, blah . . . GOP . . . blah, blah, blah Helpfully, JR

It is unconscionable the way some posters here treat Phil with such incivility. Their insults and vilifications hardly ever fail to take one's breath away. JR

Wales is not an anarchist. I had a number of exchanges with him about anarchism on the same list, and I recall they got pretty heated. Dig those out if you want to give a fair representation of his views on anarchism. Ghs Oh yes he is! I have incontrovertible truth in the form of an email from Jimbo that I made up and now can't find! Sincerely, Peter Taylor

Isn't every sensible person against the values of a democratic political system? Did I miss a meeting? JR So, going strictly by the premises of your post, every sensible person then is to advocate the values of an undemocratic political system? Did I miss a meeting? Xray Still having trouble with thinking logically, I see. My condolences. JR

Sorry. I won't be driving 300 miles to accommodate some ass who apparently knows nothing about Texas except that there's a place called Dallas in it. (Maybe s/he figures J. R. Ewing will be there?) JR

Were you thinking of spitting in someone's face, Dennis? JR