Economics Dictionary of ArgumentsHome
| |||
|
| |||
| Comparisons, philosophy: here, we are concerned with the conditions under which it is possible to make comparisons. Objects which do not share any properties are not comparable. A comparison always refers to a singled out property among several properties embodied by more than one object. The prerequisite for comparisons is a consistency of language usage. See also analogies, description levels, steps, identification, identity, change, meaning change, ceteris paribus, experiments, observation._____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments. | |||
| Author | Concept | Summary/Quotes | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|
|
John R. Searle on Comparisons - Dictionary of Arguments
VI 121 Comparison Theory/Similarity Theory/Metaphor/J. Miller: Example "There is a property G and an object y such that the G being of the problem resembles the thorny being of y." VI 122 SearleVsComparison Theory: 1. It is wrong to assume that talking about something lets the speaker set its existence. 2. Far too many predicates or even predicate sets are used to clarify "in which respects" someone is e.g. a wolf. There are too many predicate variables! The task of calculating relevant values is unsolvable. Instead of similarity, it is about principles that the listener must come up with: Example "Washington is the father of his country". For example, "The ship plows the sea." There is no similarity claimed at all! It is claimed that the ship does something with the sea. >Metaphor, >Analogy. VI 124 The listener must look for principles that resemble ploughing or fathering. If the theory of comparison (similarity theory) were correct, it would be quite simple, because then there would be no independent semantic category at all, but only a category of elliptical utterances. VI 124/125 However, we should certainly adopt the strategies of producing similarity from the comparative theory. The similarity theory itself does not tell us how to find the relevant aspects! Similarity/Searle: in itself, similarity is an empty predicate. >Similarity, >Comparability._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution. Translations: Dictionary of Arguments The note [Concept/Author], [Author1]Vs[Author2] or [Author]Vs[term] resp. "problem:"/"solution:", "old:"/"new:" and "thesis:" is an addition from the Dictionary of Arguments. If a German edition is specified, the page numbers refer to this edition. |
Searle I John R. Searle The Rediscovery of the Mind, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 German Edition: Die Wiederentdeckung des Geistes Frankfurt 1996 Searle II John R. Searle Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind, Cambridge/MA 1983 German Edition: Intentionalität Frankfurt 1991 Searle III John R. Searle The Construction of Social Reality, New York 1995 German Edition: Die Konstruktion der gesellschaftlichen Wirklichkeit Hamburg 1997 Searle IV John R. Searle Expression and Meaning. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1979 German Edition: Ausdruck und Bedeutung Frankfurt 1982 Searle V John R. Searle Speech Acts, Cambridge/MA 1969 German Edition: Sprechakte Frankfurt 1983 Searle VII John R. Searle Behauptungen und Abweichungen In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle VIII John R. Searle Chomskys Revolution in der Linguistik In Linguistik und Philosophie, G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle, Frankfurt/M. 1974/1995 Searle IX John R. Searle "Animal Minds", in: Midwest Studies in Philosophy 19 (1994) pp. 206-219 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild, Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
||
> Counter arguments against Searle
> Counter arguments in relation to Comparisons
