Now, any given word must signify one thing, or a finite number of things, or an infinite number of things. If the word has a finite number of meanings, then it would be possible to invent a name for each meaning, so that all words would have a single meaning. But if each word has an infinite number of meanings, reasoning and conversation have become impossible, because not to have one meaning is to have no meaning. But if a word has a meaning, the object cannot be both man and not-man. If the skeptic attempt to avoid the arguments, he might do so by saying nothing. In this case, however, there is no skeptical theory awaiting refutation. Or he might accuse Aristotle of begging the question by using the law of contradiction. But, then, if he says this, he has said something, and has himself admitted the force of logic.
Now, if there were no ambiguity in language, I obviously
could not deceive a Nazi. At best, I could say “search for yourself.” But if he
persisted in questioning me, he would come to realize I was intentionally
avoiding his question. What would follow I would consider to be less than
desirable. So there is good reason for language to be fuzzy, though in an ideal
world – a world without Nazis – clarity would be a worthy goal.
3 comments:
I like Clark's funny answer to the nazi: "If I told you, you wouldn't believe me."
Ryan,
Hey Ryan, whatever happened to the Much dudes who were going to humiliate us with a full rebuttal of our Theology Proper?
Heh. I forgot about that.
Post a Comment