[hist-analytic] Not Cricket

jlsperanza at aol.com jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Jan 17 15:42:30 EST 2010

In a message dated 1/17/2010 10:25:48 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Baynesr at comcast.net writes:
The idea has been around. It goes back to  commentary on Aristotle, where 
there are things for which there is no excess  or defect. For example, I 
be incontinent with respect to eating, but  there is nothing comparable 
respect to murdering. So the idea, at  least, has been around.
Very good point. I loved your discussion to 'scholia', as I think scholars  
call it, of Aristotle. -- The apparatus criticum, as I think they also call 
So to apply it to 'fair', or 'just' -- you'd indeed be opting for
        "rounded" (or variable)
The flat/rounded distinction is Grice (Aspects of Reason, online, lecture i 
 or ii).
   "more or less fair"
   "less or more fair"
    "more or less just"
    "less or more just"
It seems all quartette makes sense. So it does not seem 'flat'. Alas, for I 
 like my philosophical concepts made flat by analysis (just joking).
O. T. O. H.
      "more or less unfair"
      "less or more unfair"
       "more or less unjust"
       "less or more unjust"
also make sense. Indeed, people can flout all this.
   "He is quite dead"
   "He is rather dead"
--- It seems that 'quite' is emphatic. For you cannot say,
       "He is very dead"
You should actually, because 'very', as R. Hall will know, is short for 
        "He is, verily, dead."
makes a lot of sense.
There may be other tests -- and it becomes tricky if you focus as perhaps  
Grice wanted on 'just' as adverb, "just-acting". For the very idea of adverb 
 becomes logical problematic
            The  judge acted unfairly
            The  judge acted.
-- the reference to these paradoxes in Luke, -- online site -- of the  
unfair or unjust judge.
More later, I hope.
J. L.

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list