I thought I might have try at grappling, and flooring, with slinky judo hip throw and wrist bend follow-up, an old, pantomime dame that occassionally oozes out from the Philosophical wings:
“How long is a piece of string?”
Well, damn me if I know … But wait -
“It is as long as the piece that you cut.”
(And that’s what we mean by “how long is it?” )
this isn’t a philosophical question, this is an idiom that has a specific meaning.
other similar non-philosophical questions (some of which don’t have specific meanings):
if a tree falls in the forest…?
where’s waldo?
how many licks does it take…?
how much would could a wood chuck…?
dude where’s my car?
A guy was hold a 2x4 straight up in the air and trying to clip his tape measure on the top of it. I said, ‘Put it on the ground and measure it, it’s easier.’ He replied, “I already know how long it is, I’m trying to find out how high it is.”
Just reverse the above.
But the idiom of “how long is a piece (of X)” does NOT have a specific meaning. It takes a grammatical or philosophical analysis to reveal that, as I hoped to have revealed it.
How about -
‘it’s as long as the piece he measured when the piece was “high”.’
No, it actually does have a specific meaning. Well, the (of X) doesn’t, but the specific phrase you were referring to does. Allow me to demonstrate with a link:
usingenglish.com/reference/i … tring.html
‘If a tree falls in the forest … ?’ is very much a philosophical question, albeit dressed up to sound all profound like. It’s a question about the concept of sound: Is it logically necessary for there to be a hearer for there to be a sound? This leads on to other questions: If so, can the hearer be hypothetical? And so on.
Here’s one that I read in Viz magazine once (British posters will know what I mean): If a woman says something and there’s no man around to hear her say it, is she still wrong?
No, it’s just about the definition of sound. Once you define sound, the answer is clear. Go ahead, define sound and you’ll have your answer. I can pretty much guarantee that it will be clear as day.
Erm, assuming you’re talking about the lexical definition, that’s precisely the same thing.
ok, then i don’t see how that’s philosophical. that’s just a definition.
What do you take philosophical analysis to involve? I assume university courses still contain a little bit of that.
These are answerable.
A falling tree makes no sound, whether or not there is someone there to hear it.
A woman makes no sound whether or not there is someone there to hear it, but what she says is already presumed in the description of her saying it.
Semantics should generally be determined BEFORE any philosophical discussion. Definitions are necessary for philosophy, not part of philosophy. Imo.
It’s the same thing with science. “What is the speed of light?” is a scientific question. We have to define speed before we can answer this question. Defining speed, and defining the units that are going to be used, though, isn’t part of the science. It’s necessary before you can even begin the science.
Perhaps this is where I should bow out before I end up having the same discussion in two different threads!