> Galathaea wrote

>> T.H. Ray" wrote:

>>> Hume's skepticism applies to one's inability to generalize fromm
>>> the particular, not to deduce from the general.

>>> What this has to do with postmodernism, I would venture to say, is
>>> that postmodernists seem to expect meaning to emerge from linguistic
>>> usage--rather than to accept the independence of language and meaning.
>>> This strikes me as Lamarckian, at odds with how nature and language
>>> really work. Just as one (Hume avers) cannot predict tomorrow's
>>> sunrise on the basis of n sunrises in the past--any inductive basis
>>> for language or meaning has to fail. I agree with Popper's solution to
>>> the induction problem; i.e., a good guess (bold conjecture) that is
>>> falsifiable, is a better gauge of truth than a conclusion made inductively.

>> strange that you link this with lamarckianism
>> since neolamarckian mechanism are all the rage in
>> in modern biology

> T.H. Ray wrote:

>> Galathaea wrote

>>> T.H. Ray" wrote:

>>>> Hume's skepticism applies to one's inability to generalize fromm

>
>  >>> the particular, not to deduce from the general.
>
>
>
>
>

>>>> What this has to do with postmodernism, I would venture to say, is
>>>> that postmodernists seem to expect meaning to emerge from linguistic
>>>> usage--rather than to accept the independence of language and meaning.  
>>>> This strikes me as Lamarckian, at odds with how nature and language
>>>> really work.  Just as one (Hume avers) cannot predict tomorrow's
>>>> sunrise on the basis of n sunrises in the past--any inductive basis
>>>> for language or meaning has to fail.  I agree with Popper's solution to
>>>> the induction problem; i.e., a good guess (bold conjecture) that is ...

> Wittgenstein says a similar thing -
> the structure of the world that is
> created by the structure of language.