Dear Hassan

Not so long ago, not a million miles from Connecticut, a select group of
"experts" developed their own means of identifying witches. When confronted
with various young women, these "experts" were able to agree which of them
were witches, and which were not.

We now know that there are no witches, and there never were any witches. But
presumably, these "experts" were sincere. No doubt they felt assured that
the word 'witch' -- a word whose application they had uniquely mastered --
genuinely referred to certain young women. This feeling of assurance was
surely bolstered by the comforting amount of *agreement* among themselves.
The more the members of their select group agreed with one another, and the
larger the group, and the more disagreement from the norm was seen as
"immoral" dissent, the stronger that feeling of assurance became.

But the feeling was wholly unjustified: every single member of the group was
mistaken.

In my terminology, these "experts" were speaking a "semi-private" language.
Their judgements were based on intra-group agreement, rather than on
legitimate evidence from the outside world that they were getting things
right.

I accept that the phrase 'semi-private language' is non-standard
terminology, and I apologise for using it. But surely anyone with a primary
degree in philosophy has at least heard of "Wittgenstein's Private Language
Argument", and has a vague inkling that among mainstream Western
philosophers the idea of a "private language" is generally considered
problematic? 'Penis envy' too is surely a reasonably familiar term of
Freudian jargon? 'Reference' and 'refer', 'analytic', 'proposition', etc.
are all standard terms in Anglophone undergraduate philosophy. The point I
was trying to make about language seemed to me to be a rather pedestrian
one. It could have been made by any recent American philosophy graduate who
has read a page or two of Quine. (They would have made the point more
clearly than me, of course.) My point about art in general was a longer
shot, but fairly similar ideas can be found in Nelson Goodman (e.g. see his
_Languages of Art_) and Richard Wollheim.

To answer your specific points:

Your point that I cannot define my own terms is an extremely good one. My
defence is that I do not claim to be able to define them. I do not presume
to know *exactly* what is "accessible" and what is "inaccessible". There's a
fuzzy grey area between them, and I imagine a lot depends on each individual
's background. But _Casablanca_, say, is pretty accessible, whereas _Blue_,
say, is pretty inaccessible. I claim that inaccessible films tend to be the
artistic equivalent of jargon.

If my last posting was inaccessible in that way, or "unreadable" as you say,
then I've really shot myself in the foot. I'm guilty of a serious error of
judgement, and I'd better take my own advice to heart: let's be sceptical
about the reference of all philosophical terms, including the very terms I
use myself to express my own scepticism.

May I make a final request? Would everyone please stop taking offence at
mere displays of arrogance? You may dislike arrogance, but I like it. No one
is doing anyone any harm -- we are simply having a disagreement. Moral
disagreements especially standardly give rise to "offence", of a mild
unimportant sort, but it is best to ignore those minor irritations, because
where there is no disagreement, philosophy is dead.

I did label my last posting a "rant" (in the subject line) so as to warn
everyone that my intentions were essentially frivolous, and that those of a
sensitive disposition might prefer not to read it. No one is obliged to read
what I write. (From the recent flurry of publicly announced "unsubscribes",
I suspect that some people want to run from the room with their hands over
their ears, slamming the door behind them in a high, humourless dudgeon.)

Jeremy




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%