When the lamb and the lion sit down to dine, only one enjoy the taste of mint sauce!

(you have to read it aloud in a fake chinese accent)

What fascinates and disquiets me about it is the way in which—despite the fact that it doesn't mean anything—it nevertheless sounds very much like lots of things are widely believed to mean a great deal. It reminds me, in its niggling way, that much of what passes for philosophy and theology is in fact entirely content-free, and gets accepted as Philosophy or Theology purely in virtue of ticking the right linguistic boxes.

You'll sometimes hear analytic philosophers complain about continental philosophy after this fashion (''squishy stuff'') as well, but don't let them try to tell you they're any different. They lard their discourse with lexical items such as ``truth conditions'' and ``rigid designators'' — and what in God's name is a truthmaker?? Sounds like something out of C.S. Lewis .... Voyage of the Truthmaker...? Or were they a 1970s Christian Band The Truthmakers...? Actually The Rigid Designator is a High Official of some kind in a sex cult. All these things are just props in an elaborate language game, bearing no meaning whatever.

As Quine once said ``scepticism begins at home''... so perhaps i'm talking bollocks all the time too...(?)

But then perhaps it really does mean something—just as it sounds as if it ought.. and we (and even Ronnie Barker!) don't know what it is...?

Return to Thomas Forster's home page