[hist-analytic] Reciprocity: Rousseau vs. Rawls: Re: Hobbesian

[Baynesr at comcast.net]

I'm running out the door. Time for one brief comment. 



Russell doesn't discuss reciprocity anywhere. 



The real issue with respect to Russell and standard logic 

is the nature of scope and binding. You might be able to 

construct sentences involving reciprocals related to 

"Donkey sentences" (Geach, Evans) such as 



If Peter owns a donkey, he beats it. 



or to take an example from Hintikka, 



Tom and Dick admired each other's gift to himself. 



These may provide useful examples outside the usual 

binding theoretical principles in Chomsky. Treating 

quantifiers game theoretically is an option but outside 

the purview of PM style semantics. Sorry I can't go into this. 

I have to spend most all my time on the theory of justice 

at this point. MOre later perhaps. 



Actually, I have a paper no one has seen, one I wrote 

years ago. There I take some constructions we find in 

Castenada, involving quasi indicators, and attempt a 

binding theoretical approach to quantifier placement. 

If anyone is interested I might be able to find it. The 

problem is that when I was correcting a number of errors 

the house caught on fire; I set it aside and never went 

back. So if you know anyone who's done work on binding 

theory involving quasi-indicators, let me know. 



Regards 



Steve 




----- Original Message ----- 
From: jlsperanza at aol.com 
To: hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk 
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 7:31:10 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific 
Subject: Re: Reciprocity: Rousseau vs. Rawls: Re: Hobbesian 





In a message dated 1/13/2010 7:32:22  A.M. Eastern Standard Time, 
Baynesr at comcast.net writes: 
"How about...Each  must do for himself with the least harm 
to each other." 
The problem here  is that the reciprocal 'each other' is 
not bound; that is, I have no idea to  what it refers. It 
has no antecedent! Like reflexives, reciprocals must  be 
bound in their "governing category" meaning that they 
must be coindexed  with an antecedent (within certain 
syntactical structures). So to my ear this  is not grammatical.   


--- 

Thanks for commentary. 
  
I'll get back to you re issues of realism. Take very much taken about that, 
 and will consider 'assumption'-based analysis. It's interesting that 
assumptions  and EXPECTATIONS -- its reciprocal, as it were -- seemed to work for 
Grice, but  he was a realist too, so I'll reconsider. 
  
Re: your judgement of ungrammaticality: 
  
(1) * Each must do for himself with the least harm 
to each other. 
  
* marks ungrammatical. 
  
Bayne: 

"The problem here is that the reciprocal 'each other' is 
not bound;  that is, I have no idea to what it refers. It 
has no antecedent! Like  reflexives, reciprocals must be 
bound in their "governing category" meaning  that they 
must be coindexed with an antecedent (within certain 
syntactical  structures). So to my ear this is not grammatical." 
  
I was thinking of a pirotic formulation, as it were, i.e. alla Grice method 
 in philosopical psychology, where maxims of his manual or imannuel are 
written  or formulated for "any old pirot" as it were (or person, if you must). 
  
So in a model for two individuals 
  
a, b. 
  
(1) * Each must do for himself with the least harm 
to each other. 
  
we have 
  
MINIMISE-PAIN (a, b) 
MINIMISE-PAIN (b, a) 
  
irrelevant, otiose, but still corollaries: 
  
MINIMISE-PAIN (a, a) 
MINIMISE-PAIN (b, b) 
  
If we take a dyadic argument as ill-forming a sentence if equated ("John   
loves John"), ("John minimises his own pain") then we can avoid the latter 
two,  and stick to the relevant first two hits. I wouldn't. 

In other words, to reply to Bayne: 
  
  
"The problem here is that the reciprocal 'each other' is 
not bound; that  is, I have no idea to what it refers." 
  
Well, either a, or b. It wouldn't matter which. It applies to "any old   
pirot", or any constant of individual which is 'dossiered', to use Grice's   
parlance (his idea of 'dossiers' for individuals in terms of their definite   
descriptors), by the range of variables of individuals. 
  
"It 
has no antecedent!" 
  
In which case, I would suggest: give ANY constant, i.e. each and every,   
constant of individual as a possible antecedent. Note that philosophers and   
moralists usually SHOULD be concerned with mere formula with variables of   
individuals. It would be unfair if a moralist denies to provide an example of 
a  moral law on the basis that he cannot find the antecedent for the 
variables! Or  worse, that they complain the variable is not bound!? 
  
Bayne: 
  
"Like reflexives, reciprocals must be 
bound in their "governing  category" meaning that they 
must be coindexed with an antecedent (within  certain 
syntactical structures). So to my ear this is not grammatical." 
  
Sorry about that! And I do get your point. Will try to work on more   
grammatical forms. But again, recall that in my rewrite, it's not real minimise   
of pain we want. We don't want THAT type of benevolence. We don't want Evita 
to  warn us not to cry for her! We want us, basically, as Grice has it in 
his  'pinko' agenda, 'to be left alone!'. 
  
I loved your idea of being 'partially in love'. I do think that when lovers 
 (usually) speak of mutual reciprocal love, they don't know what they are 
talking  about! Recall, "The power of love" 
  
    You've got to GIVE a little 
    TAKE a little. 
  
But as Eros and Anteros -- in Greek mythology go -- the love you GIVE is   
always GREATER than the love you TAKE. So what does that say for Reciprocity. 
I  would like too to check what Russell in Principia says about reciprocal. 
I get  hits for Langendoen, etc. -- but not Russell's idea, if any. 
  
Cheers, 
  
J. L. Speranza 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20100113/5b72889c/attachment.html>