[hist-analytic] Hume's Fork

Jlsperanza at aol.com Jlsperanza at aol.com
Thu Feb 26 08:41:09 EST 2009

Ah for linguistic botanising...
--- call it the linguistic botanical bug.
Anyway, this I found would better describe Hume's _thing_, it's a  bifurcated 
furca, as it were. One OED is amusing:
"His beard was bi-furked and short"
                    Dixon, _Windsor_, 1879, p. 5
As for triple double dichotomy of Jones -- he _has_ to be amused: 
Gr. dikho-, combining form of adv.  in *two*, asunder, apart, as  in  cutting 
in *two*.
So that should give us three bifurcations, no 'triples' or 'doubles' or  
_nothing_ [sic].
I wish I could explain to Bayne how we _must_ appeal to experience to  
_prove_ Cicero = Tully. But that's not the 'epistemic fork' but the other  one.
Apparently Flew is quoting from that passage where Hume goes,  tempered,
       "Either the book shows relations of  ideas, or matters of fact,
         or -- _burn it_." So it  was a trident, rather?
One blog writes, "Does that mean that Hume's books are inflammated,  too?
Borges quipped on this in Texas -- Austin/Texas -- he was giving a lecture  
on Cervantes in English! (now published), back in 1968. He is commenting on the 
 passage where the curate and the barber are determining what books to commit 
to  the flames. They get one by Cervantes himself, "A Collection of Verse", 
and they  save it.
But Borges wonders, "Now, if they would get a copy of the _Quixote_ and  
commit it to
the flames, what would be _some_ myse-en-abyme, would it not?!"
Oddly, I expanded on that in one of my recent _pub_lications, ISSN -- on,  of 
all titles, "The post-modern Quixote":
ISBN-10: 958338867X | ISBN-13: 9789583388675 
(mine is just a contribution, not the whole hog -- but don't I manage to  
quote from Grice on 'autophora' and _regressus ad infinitum_ as 'deeming'  
something to be so?)
J. L. Speranza
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list