Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

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. - Sai