0
Sextus Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Grammar Doubts
1) “On the other hand, it is possible that he conserves the notion of an objective reality as legitimate, but denies that science, or any other conception of the world, can describe such a reality.”
I’m not sure about the “possible that he conserves”.
2) “In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to rely upon an invalid inference from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical about every other area to the affirmation that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical not even about some other area.”
Are the punctuations correct?
3) “I think that someone can deny the existence of objective moral values with no need to be skeptical only about morality or non-skeptical about science; what I do not believe is that this denial does not presuppose as a necessary condition confidence in the objectivity of some conception of the world.”
Is “some” right or should I use “any”?
4) "This point will be important for determining in the final section whether it is possible to characterize this type of skepticism as non-local."
Is "important for" correct?
Thanks,
Sextus
I’m not sure about the “possible that he conserves”.
2) “In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to rely upon an invalid inference from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical about every other area to the affirmation that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical not even about some other area.”
Are the punctuations correct?
3) “I think that someone can deny the existence of objective moral values with no need to be skeptical only about morality or non-skeptical about science; what I do not believe is that this denial does not presuppose as a necessary condition confidence in the objectivity of some conception of the world.”
Is “some” right or should I use “any”?
4) "This point will be important for determining in the final section whether it is possible to characterize this type of skepticism as non-local."
Is "important for" correct?
Thanks,
Sextus
Top answer
Hello Sextus 1) Perhaps 'retains' rather than 'conserves'. 2) Perhaps insert 'applying' after 'rely upon'; and change 'not even' to 'even'. But I find the negatives and positives difficult in this sentence, and so may have misunderstood.
- Hello Sextus 1) Perhaps 'retains' rather than 'conserves'.
- 2) Perhaps insert 'applying' after 'rely upon'; and change 'not even' to 'even'.
- But I find the negatives and positives difficult in this sentence, and so may have misunderstood.
- 3) I'm not sure I understand this sentence.
- Does it mean: 'You can deny the existence of objective moral values without having to be skeptical only about morality or non-skeptical about science; but this denial necessarily presupposes confidence in the objectivity of some conception of the world'?
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
11 Answers
0
Hello Sextus
1) Perhaps 'retains' rather than 'conserves'.
2) Perhaps insert 'applying' after 'rely upon'; and change 'not even' to 'even'. But I find the negatives and positives difficult in this sentence, and so may have misunderstood.
3) I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Does it mean: 'You can deny the existence of objective moral values without having to
1) Perhaps 'retains' rather than 'conserves'.
2) Perhaps insert 'applying' after 'rely upon'; and change 'not even' to 'even'. But I find the negatives and positives difficult in this sentence, and so may have misunderstood.
3) I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Does it mean: 'You can deny the existence of objective moral values without having to
00
Hello MrP. Thanks for your suggestions. I’ll make a couple of remarks about the following sentence, which you found confusing:
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical about every other area to the affirmation
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is not essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one does not have to be non-skeptical about every other area to the affirmation
00
Hello Sextus
I'm still having a little trouble understanding! Is this a fair paraphrase?
'Although it is true that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, it does not therefore follow that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical even about some other area. Yet this is the basis for Bett's claim that contempo
I'm still having a little trouble understanding! Is this a fair paraphrase?
'Although it is true that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, it does not therefore follow that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical even about some other area. Yet this is the basis for Bett's claim that contempo
00
Thanks for your suggestions Pedanticus. Maybe I could say something like this:
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-s
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-s
00
Ah! Now I follow.
I wonder if the contrast between 'every other area' and 'even about some other area' needs bringing out. For instance, I don't know if (for the latter - 'even about...') this would be an equivalent:
'...one need not be non-sceptical about any area'.
i.e. the contrast is between 'scepticism everywhere isn't necessary' and 'scepticism anywhere
I wonder if the contrast between 'every other area' and 'even about some other area' needs bringing out. For instance, I don't know if (for the latter - 'even about...') this would be an equivalent:
'...one need not be non-sceptical about any area'.
i.e. the contrast is between 'scepticism everywhere isn't necessary' and 'scepticism anywhere
00
Hi MrP
I think the contrast between "every other area" and " (not) even about some other area" is necessary because I'm talking about the areas other than morality. So one goes from "one need not be non-skeptical about every area other than morality" to "one need not be non-skeptical (not) even about some area other than morality".
I think that the first example in you PS gets
I think the contrast between "every other area" and " (not) even about some other area" is necessary because I'm talking about the areas other than morality. So one goes from "one need not be non-skeptical about every area other than morality" to "one need not be non-skeptical (not) even about some area other than morality".
I think that the first example in you PS gets
00
Hello Sextus
I still find the 'areas' distinction difficult. Out of (philosophical) interest, how does it work in terms of examples?
(It troubles me that I don't understand...)
MrP
I still find the 'areas' distinction difficult. Out of (philosophical) interest, how does it work in terms of examples?
(It troubles me that I don't understand...)
MrP
00
Suppose that there are only three alleged areas or fields or spheres, or whatever term you might prefer, that refer to different kinds of entities that supposedly exist in the world: the natural sciences, morality (or morals?) and common sense. Now, the "every other area" would refer to the natural sciences and common sense. The "some other area" would refer to one of them. So, even if, to be scep
00
That was my inkling, but the 'area' confused me. Perhaps this would be the meaning you want:
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality,
“In my view, Bett’s claim that contemporary ethical skepticism is essentially local seems to be based upon an invalid inference. For from the fact that, to be skeptical about morality, one need not be non-skeptical about every other area, Bett infers that, to be skeptical about morality,
00
That's the exact meaning, man! Yeah, you got it perfectly well. Now it's clear and not grammatically odd.
Thanks,
Sextus
Thanks,
Sextus
0
Related Questions