Use of general nouns without quantifiers in argument

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I am wondering how philosphers treat the use of general nouns without quantifiers. For ex., in everyday conversation, it's typical to make general statements using general nouns, such as "Women love to shop."The person making such a statement isn't using the syllogicistic form with its "alls" or "somes"; the person is just using everyday speech to make some point or other. But when this is done, sSomeone always has to point out the exceptions (and I am a woman who does not like to shop) to this observation/statement, thereby forcing the original speaker to defend himself/herself against accusations of sexism, for ex., or of making invalid argument by presuming they're saying "all women like to shop." Is the onus on the person making the general statement to use quantifiers -- or is the onus on the person listening to assume that general nouns are used in a general way, and to assume some level of respect for the intellectual powers of the person making the statement?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 1,064 • Replies: 4

No top replies

@Cookie457,

I think honest philosophers do not read into statements what isn't there.

"Women love to shop." is a statement that can be taken at face value without an assumption that ALL women are included in the statement or that ONLY women are included in the statement.

The statement could be disputed with a qualification such as, "Well, ALL women don't love to shop; therefore the original statement is false." The statement isn't false, however, if SOME women love to shop and an honest philosopher would acknowledge that. If he was particularly anal, he might feel it necessary to insert his own qualification: "At least SOME women or MOST women love to shop."

It is similar to a statement: Horses love to run. That is also a statement begging for a qualifier, but one that is unnecessary. Intelligent/honest philosophers will allow for the exception of lazy or disabled horses who don't like to run without making an issue of it.

And there I didn't use the qualifier I could have used; i.e. MOST intelligent/honest philosophers. . . . Smile

0 Replies

There is a cultural problem here: I have dual heritage (at least). The concept of literal truth, that is the words having a literal meaning is very Germanic.
A more French/ Spanish version is the words have a "spirit" i.e. we should try to determine the intent of the user.
It is why the concept of the bible being literally true can be proposed in America: the concept is laughable in Spain.
Legally the idea of the letter of the law, as opposed to the spirit of the law is a conflict in different cultures.
You notice that most philosophers are German. Wittgenstein argued quite comprehensively in linguistic terms: however he tied himself in knots and recanted all that he claimed.
There are two paths to go down: one would be to abandon language altogether and have symbolic logic.
Another would be to try and learn eachothers foibles in discussions.
The idea of inventing a newspeak language: one without adjectives is absurd, people use metaphor and analogy.

0 Replies

Oh and welcome to A2K Cookie. Smile

0 Replies

@Cookie457,

Cookie457 wrote:

Is the onus on the person making the general statement to use quantifiers -- or is the onus on the person listening to assume that general nouns are used in a general way, and to assume some level of respect for the intellectual powers of the person making the statement?

What's the context?

0 Replies

Use of general nouns without quantifiers in argument

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know