Comments on: Blogging avant la lettre

By: Escomb

Escomb — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:59:22 +0000

Mr Bennett should have said . . . instead of doing ONLY B. Because given B, C and D, A may also result from not doing C and D or, indeed, X, Y and Z (but I’d rather not get that far down in the alphabet where things may change, as in String Theory).

By: Cosmopoetica Commonplace Book » A Note on Mr. Bennett

Cosmopoetica Commonplace Book » A Note on Mr. Bennett — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:09:19 +0000

[...] (The paper is here presented in its entirety as published in Analysis, January 1966. Via Crooked Timber) [...]

By: Cosmopoetica » Incisive Analysis?

Cosmopoetica » Incisive Analysis? — Sat, 13 Jan 2007 01:01:28 +0000

[...] If only a few more blog entries could approach Anscombe’s potent blend of incisiveness and brevity… [...]

By: Sk

Sk — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 16:48:53 +0000

Goddamn it! GW is the only mass murderer around here! You people are off script!

By: Teddy

Teddy — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:53:21 +0000

I have good news for you, abb1. Seen differently, you could have invented a weapon of mass destruction that would exterminate the human race. But mercifully, you didn’t. Ergo, we should all be grateful to you that we are alive. Thanks!

By: abb1

abb1 — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 12:37:18 +0000

Great, all those people dying of cancer all over the world are the result of my reading this blog, ‘cause instead I could’ve found a cure. So I’m a mass-murderer. Thanks, Mr. Bennett.

By: Neil

Neil — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 10:06:30 +0000

Or, in the classic statement of the argument: A says p; however, intuitively, not-p; therefore, not-p.

That doesn’t seem the right paraphrase. Better: A says p; however, intuitively, not-p; therefore intuitively not-p. I can’t fault the argument. But I’m certain that this triviality was only published because it came from the pen of Anscombe.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:09:35 +0000

Wow, that’s even shorter than my PSR book note! I just hope copying a whole article from JStor onto the net doesn’t get you in trouble…

By: Hasan Jafri

Hasan Jafri — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 07:27:11 +0000

How does this equation work with Tony Blair’s legacy? If A—Blair’s legacy—results not from doing B—wandering aimlessly in Iraq—then does his legacy result from whatever he did other than wandering aimlessly in Iraq? But what was that?

By: Kieran Healy

Kieran Healy — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:13:59 +0000

The original paper is by Jonathan Bennett and is about the principle of double-effect, which Bennett argues against but which Anscombe, being a good Catholic, is rather more prepared to believe. (This is why it’s referenced in a paper by Carolina on omissions, and this event—being held here organized by this person—is why I’m aware of the paper.)

By: "Q" the Enchanter

"Q" the Enchanter — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 04:06:08 +0000

Or, in the classic statement of the argument: A says p; however, intuitively, not-p; therefore, not-p.

By: harry b

harry b — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:19:43 +0000

Is it on anyone’s “the paper by someone else I most wish I’d written myself” list? Carolina?

By: Jay Conner

Jay Conner — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:18:15 +0000

G.E.M., she being one of the few who touched the garments of Wittgenstein, is as a god to me, but I, (a non-JSTOR person) would like a few more facts of the original controversy.

If Virtue results from not doing Sin, I have no problem with that, but it seems rather tautological.

If Victory results from not doing Defeat…, assuming no quarter is given, the game can go on forever, well, perhaps.

But what was the original point ?

By: Anderson

Anderson — Fri, 12 Jan 2007 03:02:35 +0000

You know, a lot of dissertations could probably be condensed to about that point.