Re: THEORY: Are commands to believe infelicitous?
|From:||Sai Emrys <saizai@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 29, 2005, 0:46|
> My question is, though, is the command "felicitous" or "infelicitous"
> in the sense of the technical definition of Searles (sp?) and Austin?
Mind giving me a definition?
I think you mean Searle - I get to have two (?) classes from him next
year, whee. (Next semester, Philosophy of Mind; I think he may also do
Scientific Approaches to Consciousness in the spring.) Haven't talked
to him yet, though, so I don't know his definition. :-P
> If I "read you a-right", you think, along with me, that it would
> be "infelicitous" if the addressee was one of that "99.9%" who
> are "core ball-grippers"; but it would be "felicitous", although
> unethical, for addressees "with 'root access' ... to themselves".
If my understanding that "felicitous" ~= "possible to implement", then yes.
> (BTW if you managed to read the whole of the thread ere now, you saw
> that I was quickly forced to back off from my original statement as
> way-too-inclusive. Imperative forms of "believe" are often
> felicitous, as many examples were given to show; it is just "commands
> to believe" that are in question.)
I only saw the branch-off thread as my Gmail threaded it, from Tom
Chappell's "back from Oaklahoma" posts.