Though the king of France does not exist
Is he bald?
Is snow white?
Are all bachelors unmarried men?
Who was the author of Waverley?
Martian water. Like Perrier, but drinkable.
Colour me eye rolling.
Well, let’s see. In one version of Uncle Angel’s historical novel, Brush with a Comb, (which is set in the future) we read
But in a later draft we read
Of course, the reviewers noted that Louis XXVI seemed to be both bald and not bald, the novel being somewhat inconsistent on this point.
I think the question is pointless. If the King of France doesn’t currently exist, then it’s not currently possible to answer the question.
Louis XXVI was so hirsute that people said his head had been mugged by a shrub.
But in a later draft we read
“Look out!” muttered one of the guards through the side of his mouth. “Here comes King Chrome Dome.”
Of course, the reviewers noted that Louis XXVI seemed to be both bald and not bald, the novel being somewhat inconsistent on this point.
I think the question is pointless. If the King of France doesn’t currently exist, then it’s not currently possible to answer the question.
Is snow white?
Yes. I assume that because the basic building block of snow is ice, which is clear, that there’s some physical property which makes snow appear white once crystals form flakes. It’s probably like clear plastic which, once you’ve folded it a few times, becomes silvery and translucent.
Are all bachelors unmarried men?
Only if we’re using the word to mean “man who is unmarried or has never been married”. On the other hand, the word does have other senses such as “holder of a first degree” and “young knight who serves another”. So provided we’re clear about which one we’re using, there can be no such thing as a married bachelor.
Who was the author of Waverley?
Sir Walter Scott, wasn’t it? I’m sure I’ve seen this question somewhere else, but can’t recall the import of it. It’s not one of those name-and-title things, which, I believe, Lewis Carroll did somewhere in one of the Alice books. The title of the book is X, but it’s name is Y. Apparently, this has something to do with Bertrand Russell and indefinite references to a thing. Here’s a paragraph from Russell’s Mysticism and Logic (Chapter X Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description) which explains the deal.
The first point to observe is that, in any proposition about ‘the author of Waverley’, provided Scott is not explicitly mentioned, the denotation itself, i.e., Scott, does not occur, but only the concept of denotation, which will be represented by a variable. Suppose we say ‘the author of Waverley was the author of Marmion’, we are certainly not saying that both were Scott — we may have forgotten that there was such a person as Scott. We are saying that there is some man who was the author of Waverley and the author of Marmion. That is to say, there is someone who wrote Waverley and Marmion, and no one else wrote them. Thus the identity is that of a variable, i.e., of an indefinite subject, ‘someone’, This is why we can understand propositions about ‘the author of Waverley’, without knowing who he was. Where we say ‘the author of Waverley was a poet’, we mean ‘out and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was a poet’; where we say ‘the author of Waverley was Scott’ we mean ‘one and only one man wrote Waverley, and he was Scott’. Here the identity is between a variable, i.e., an indeterminate subject (‘he’), and Scott; ‘the author of Waverley’ has been analysed away, and no longer appears as a constituent of the proposition.’Alles klar, ja?
Martian water. Like Perrier, but drinkable.
So, if some liquid found on Mars has the structure H3O2 and in all respects appears to resemble the more familiar H2O, is it water?
You could call it “Martian water”, or this particular liquid could be called “water” in the right context (i.e., on Mars itself), but it seems to be a case of “Water, Jim, but not as we know it”.
You could call it “Martian water”, or this particular liquid could be called “water” in the right context (i.e., on Mars itself), but it seems to be a case of “Water, Jim, but not as we know it”.
Colour me eye rolling.
There’s this colour, gruebleen, which is is green up to teatime in the year 2000 and blue thereafter. What colour is it really?
It isn’t a colour since the property of this so-called colour is inconsistent with the properties of other colours which remain constant. Colours can fade or be modified in various ways, but that’s due to external factors and not something the spectrum of visible light is about to do any time soon.
So, in other words, another meaningless sentence.
The next day. Shifting from one part of the spectrum to another is not a property of colours, but changes in colour are the property of quite a lot of things such as octopuses, chameleons, skin, leaves. We think of the thing changing colour rather than some shift in the colour itself, which might leave an odd gap in the spectrum. When leaves change colour from green to yellow or orange and then to brown, the colours themselves remain constant in other things.
It isn’t a colour since the property of this so-called colour is inconsistent with the properties of other colours which remain constant. Colours can fade or be modified in various ways, but that’s due to external factors and not something the spectrum of visible light is about to do any time soon.
So, in other words, another meaningless sentence.
The next day. Shifting from one part of the spectrum to another is not a property of colours, but changes in colour are the property of quite a lot of things such as octopuses, chameleons, skin, leaves. We think of the thing changing colour rather than some shift in the colour itself, which might leave an odd gap in the spectrum. When leaves change colour from green to yellow or orange and then to brown, the colours themselves remain constant in other things.
As Willow liked to say, “Bored now”, which means we’ll look at the remaining short problems in this section tomorrow.
Comments