🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec31.112231.18915@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu writes:
> 
> I do not understand this appeal to inscrutability; surely it is not
> justified by anything claimed by Quine ("Ontological Relativity"), --
> each Quinean native is perfectly capable of articulating the
> disquotational scheme
> 	"Gavagai" refers to gavagai.  
> If Quine argues that inscrutability of reference is not limited to the
> cases of radical translation between different languages, and that "we
> can reproduce the inscrutability of reference at home", he does so in
> the context of analyzing the case of "homophonic translation" of his
> neighbor's idiolect.  Surely this is a far cry from blithely claiming
> that "reference in one's own language is inscrutable to oneself", --
> one is generally not required to homophonically translate his own
> idiolect.  Randall, I entreat you to abstain from non-standard
> philosophical use of technical terms.

Randall is quite correct in his exegesis of Quine. Quine's behaviorism,
and its attendant denial of the individual's privileged access to his
own internal states, implies that in order to understand his very own
utterances, the speaker must engage in (homophonic) translation. Radical
translation begins at home. (Take this as a reductio if you like.)

Jonathan


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Jonathan Kastin              I would say that my views are entirely my own, |
| CUNY Grad Center             but that would be ridiculously ahistorical.    |
| Philosophy Department        Besides which, it might presuppose a viewpoint,| 
| jdk@cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu     and thus an objective Reality.  :)             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------