RE: BHA: Bearded men

["Wallace Polsom" <wallace@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Colin,

My point was simply that it is possible to use a proper name to refer to a
person without also having identifying knowledge of that person, i.e.
without associating the name with accurate descriptions or definitions of
the person. You last post seemed to me to suggest otherwise. Sorry if I
misunderstood.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You Deserve a Break Today

INT. McDonalds. Lunch time.

WALLACE and COLIN are standing together in line.

Wallace: Give me a box of dog shit please.
Employee: What?!
Wallace: A box of dog shit. Oh, and a coke.
Employee: Please sir. If you don't behave, I'll have to ask you to leave.
Now what do you want?
Wallace: (pointing at the tray at the next checkout) I want one of those! A
box of dog doo-doo.
Employee: (rolling his eyes) Okay, that's one Big Mac and a coke.
Wallace: Yes!

Wallace smiles at Colin, who is clearly not pleased about something.

INT. WALLACE's car. A few minutes later.

WALLACE is driving. COLIN is in the passenger seat.

Wallace: Pass me that box of dog shit.
Colin: (handing Wallace his Big Mac) Here's you go. You want a napkin with
that?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sincerely,
Wallace




> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Colin
> Wight
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 1998 8:56 AM
> To: bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: BHA: Bearded men
>
>
> Hi Wallace,
>
> But you are making my point for me surely? You say they have mistaken
> beliefs. What marks the distinction between a mistaken belief and one that
> is not mistaken? I didn't say that those people who have certain beliefs
> about certain individuals couldn't refer to the referent of the beliefs, I
> simply said that we had to leave open the possibility that they were
> mistaken in their belief. That is Jesus (the bloke the Romans killed), may
> not have been Jesus (the son of God). A position you must affirm. I'm
> insisting on conceptual clarity again.
>
>
>  In the case of names,
> >so long as we follow a causal chain of Jesus back to a SPECIFIC
> historical
> >figure that people, on various occasions, dubbed Jesus, then we must say
> >that contemporary references to Jesus succeed.
>
> Yes, Yes, I conceded this in my post. The term Jesus can properly be said
> to refer to this person, but was he Jesus (defined as the son of God). And
> is the bloke who sits in my local department store really Santa, or just
> the bloke next door referred to as Santa.
>
> >
> >The Christians who are willing to follow the causal chain back
> to a specific
> >historical personage are setting themselves up for a fall, so to speak,
> >because then we have a human being rather than a spectre to argue about.
>
> Well potentially, yes that was my point. The fall, what makes it possible?
> But I am not willing to let my atheism prejudge the issue. If I take
> epistemological fallibilism seriously, that geezer murdered by the Romans
> we call Jesus, could really have been Jesus. But equally, even
> though he is
> refered to as Jesus, he may not be. But you need the distinction in order
> to even think about making this this call.
>
> >
> >I might believe that Colin is Santa, or JC, or God itself, and I
> might also
>
> >believe that he is currently working at a Pizza Hut in London,
> Ontario, but
> >this doesn't prevent me from referring to Colin using the name
> "Colin," does
> >it Colin?
>
> Well, Wallace, if you believe I am any one of these people I'd be
> more than
> happy with the accolade - well maybe not Santa. And you are right, you
> could believe I am Jesus but refer to me as Colin. But why would you want
> to? What would you gain? There is nothing to stop you asking for
> a piece of
> dog-shit (excuse my language folks) when next you enter MacDonalds, lets
> just hope that, and notwithstanding that often the difference may be
> slight, they don't give you what you ask for, rather than a Big-mac . It
> seems to me that a person who went round referring to things with names
> other than what he believed them to be, or how the rest of
> society referred
> to them, would be in for a long spell with Jack Nicholson in the cuckoos
> nest.  I mean look, we can use any signifier to refer to
> anything, but once
> signifiers are designated and we misuse them, then reference
> fails. When we
> say Jesus really did die on the cross we need to be clear about what we
> mean. Do we mean that a person, who we call Jesus was killed on the cross?
> Or, do we mean that Jesus the son of God died on the Cross?
>
> The postmoderns have many a good point, language is very slippery and
> meaning inherently unstable and we would do well to at least attempt to be
> clear about what we mean.
>
>
>
> That's why, since I really am Colin, Wallace, to call me Jesus is to
> misname me.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Dr. Colin Wight
> Department of International Politics
> University of Wales
> Aberystwyth
> Tel: (01970) 621769
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---