Men are sometimes honest

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #18999

    So the proposition “Men are sometimes honest” is to be taken as particular. I see it, however as universal.

    I would suggest that “men” refers to all men. Its a sweeping statement indeed but the speaker could mean it as such.

    There is a difference between “All men are sometimes honest (and therefore sometimes dishonest)” and “Some men are permanently honest (and therefore some of them are nott)

    The Proposition seems to indicate men as a universal to me but perhaps the phase itself is lacking in clarity. Does the speaker refer to all men sometimes or some men all the time? Surely we would have to ask for clarification from the speaker.

    All men (universal) are sometimes honest
    Some men (particular) are honest (Honest people… that is honesty as a permanent trait rather than describing changing behavior)


    When you have a proposition without an explicit quantifier (and it’s obviously not singular) then you have to choose between taking it as universal and taking it as particular. If you’re speaking to someone, you can of course ask him to clarify his meaning; likewise, if you’re emailing or texting or phoning – this is a point you have yourself correctly noted. However, if you’re not in contact with the speaker or writer then, unless the context unambiguously requires you to take a proposition universally, you should take it particularly, as that commits the utterer of the proposition to a more defensible position. [See my brief discussion of the principle of charity under the ‘All or some’ topic.]

    In the particular example you discuss – “Men are sometimes dishonest” – not only is there nothing in this proposition considered simply in itself to suggest universality which, under the principle of charity, would be enough to take it as particular, but further, the adverb ‘sometimes’ gives you a further positive push in that direction.

    Your third paragraph contains a ‘therefore’ which, as I hope you may come to see, is not strictly justified. There is a difference between one proposition’s implying another and one proposition’s being consistent with another. This should become clearer when we come to take a look at inference.

    Finally, translation is an art, not a science. Your task in translation it to do your best to go from one language to another without semantic falsification or semantic addition. In most cases in our logic, the translation is straightforward; in a few cases, there is genuine room for disagreement.

    I have found from experience that some of the problems people have with translation are retrospectively clarified once they move on to a consideration of inference.


    Thank you for the reply.

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.