Reply to Professor Lehrer
- 57 Downloads
I am grateful to Professor Lehrer for discussing my early views on ostensive concepts, ostensive rules and their relations to each other and for raising some interesting points. They will allow me to explain and defend some aspects of my original position on the logic of inexact concepts and propositions as well as to say a litle about the way in which this position developed in the subsequent years. He rightly distinguishes between a logic of concepts and a theory of their acquisition and rightly says that my primary interest, as expressed in Conceptual Thinking, was the former. His objections are directed against what he takes to be the topic of my secondary interest, namely the acquisition of concepts. Yet it was never my intention to develop such a theory — though I obviously must have given this impression to at least one fairminded and highly competent reader.
KeywordsLogical Theory Infinite Regress Conceptual Thinking Secondary Interest Competent Reader
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.See S.C. Kleene, Introdution to Metamathematics (Amsterdam, 1952) Section 64.Google Scholar
- 2.See J.P.Cleave, “Quasi-Boolean Algebras, Continuity and Three-valued Logic”, Zeitschr. für Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 22 (1976) pp.481–500.Google Scholar
- 3.For the indispensability of commonsense language in legal thinking see my “Sprachspiele und rechtliche Institutionen”, Proceedings of the 5th Wittgenstein Symposium (Wien, 1981) pp.480–491.Google Scholar