At 12:16 AM -0400 7/8/97, Paul S. Dixon wrote:
>Jonathan, Charles:
>
>It just occurred to me in my last response that I did not respond to some
>of the things you said particularly. So, I do so now. Please pardon.
>
>>I think one of the big problems we're having here is that formal logic
>>leaves no room for what is implied, but not formally stated. It
>>ignores a significant portion of what the speaker or writer meant to
>>say. Paul Grice's "Logic and Conversation" gives good examples to
>> illustrate this. Consider this example from the essay, which is
>> included in the book "Studies in the Way of Words":
>>
>>A. I am out of gas
>>B. There is a gas station around the corner
>>
>>We can assume that speaker B believes that the gas station is open,
>>that they do sell gasoline, etc., even though none of this could be
>>formally proven from the above statements. In fact, if we fail to
>conclude
>>this, we miss the whole point of what speaker B said. Similarly, if Paul
>> tells women what to wear when they pray or prophesy so that they
>> do not shame their head, we can assume that Paul thinks that it
>> makes a difference, and is not just giving fashion advice, telling
>> women what to wear while shaming their heads.
>
>The problem with doing this, however, is that it becomes conjecture. We
>have to assume things that may or may not be true. That's fine, as long
>as we understand that it is an assumption, and not an inference. In this
>case, then, we may want to introduce the discussion of probability. But,
>we err if we draw conclusions dogmatically. This can have dire
>consequences, especially if the conclusions drawn are used to determine
>the interpretation of other scripture.
>
>This is exactly what some have done with the 1 Cor 11:5 / 1 Cor 14:34-35
>scenario. I have seen many times where 1 Cor 14:34-35 is interpreted in
>line with the assumption that the negative inference of 11:5 is valid.
>So, if the negative inference is not true, then the interpretations of
>two passages have been flawed.
>
>We must be content with what scripture says, and what it logically
>implies.
>
>>
>>The relationship between formal propositional logic and natural
>>language discourse is quite difficult, and I doubt that we really
>> have the expertise or bandwidth to discuss it in this forum. But
>> I think that it is important to realize that (1) most of the
>> content of *any* natural language communication is not in
>> the form of logical propositions; (2) if we
>>don't grasp anything that isn't explicitly stated, we often miss the
>> whole point; (3) the reason most of us learned Greek is to grasp
>> the richness of the original in all its ambiguity, subtlety, and
>> implications.
>
>I disagree. Logical thought is essential to our language. WIthout it
>there would be no hope for effective communication and all would be
>chaos. Certainly with the inspired text we would be in serious trouble
>if we had to guess or figure out what the author was implying, apart from
>the rules of logic.
>
>Secondly (2), can you give me an example in scripture where something is
>not explicitly stated, but the "whole point" is found otherwise and apart
>from logic?
>
>Thirdly (3), the reason I learned Greek was so I could study scripture as
>it was written originally and so I could better exegete and interpret
>scripture "in all its ambiguity, subtletly, and implications." But, this
>does not mean that the Greek language violates the rules of logic (I
>challenge you to show me where it does), or that its meaning is somehow
>mystically communicated.
>
>Paul Dixon
Carl W. Conrad
Department of Classics/Washington University
One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018
Summer: 1647 Grindstaff Road/Burnsville, NC 28714/(704) 675-4243
cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu OR cconrad@yancey.main.nc.us
WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/