Selectric II,
<<Am reminded of, "It depends upon what the meaning of 'is,' is." -- Bill Clinton.>>
Ah, yes, we've heard that one before: "That all depends on what the meaning of is, is." -- Bill Clinton
Do you, or anyone else here, know of anyone in the public or press who really figured out the real reason President Clinton made such an apparently stupid comment, seemingly contrary to all common sense? Could it really have been just blathering nonsense from a genuine Rhodes Scholar as we've all been led to believe by pontificating puerile pundits? I think not!
I mean, after all, wasn't his hair-splitting response just too damn good for pissy pundits to pass up as a premier example of his supposedly constant attempt to dodge the truth using ultra literal interpretations of inquiry contents, coupled with surgically precise context dependent literal answers? Kind of reminds me of other semantic pissing contests on this here time devouring thread.
Here's the real reason Bill Clinton wasn't just pissing into the wind of semantic meaning:
From: Ludwig Wittgenstein (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Section on Meaning:
<< One exception to the meaning-is-use rule of thumb is given in Sect.561, where Wittgenstein says that "the word "is" is used with two different meanings (as the copula and as the sign of equality)" but that its meaning is not its use. That is to say, "is" has not one complex use (including both "Water is clear" and "Water is H2O") and therefore one complex meaning, but two quite distinct uses and meanings. It is an accident that the same word has these two uses. It is not an accident that we use the word "car" to refer to both Fords and Hondas. But what is accidental and what is essential to a concept depends on us, on how we use it. >>
utm.edu
Jerry (Proud to bring from lurkdom, Wittgenstein, to this tendentious thread) in Omaha |
