3

I doubt this could be where I originally came across this quip/joke, but a google search found it in footnote #2 of [1]. The footnote reads:

2 Compare the malicious joke: 'Mr. Z claims to have found a counterexample to my theory. But he has misunderstood me, he has not interpreted my words as I intended. For I intended that there be no counterexamples.'

The author died in 2001; so there's no prospect of a direct inquiry as to the origins of this. Am I right in thinking this must be some kind of old chestnut in logic or philosophy? Would anybody know its provenance?

  1. Lewis, David. 1984. “Putnam’s Paradox.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 62(3):221–36. doi: 10.1080/00048408412340013.

Edit: Just a note to underscore that I'm asking here mainly about the origins of this 'joke'. Is it something David Lewis made up on the fly here? Or might it be so widely known in philosophy [an 'old chestnut'] that it need not even be cited? (You could, e.g., make an offhand reference to 'The Cave' without explicitly citing Plato.)

David C. Norris
  • 169
  • 5

1 Answers1

4

Yap, Lewis was a prominent philosopher known for his work in philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, metaphysics, and epistemology, so this quip reflects a kind of insider humor among philosophers.

The joke seems to play on the idea that one can always evade criticism of a philosophical claim by saying that any counterexamples are based on a misunderstanding of what was said. This is, of course, a fallacious way of arguing, since it can be used to preclude any possibility of disproving anything. Even if people can be misunderstood.

  • 3
    Lewis was not a true Scotsman. – Scott Rowe Jul 28 '23 at 18:48
  • i don't know of many philosophers who claimed to have been completely misunderstood by all their peers. maybe wittgenstein, but then he was arguably the most successful philosopher of the 20th century. for that reason, i think this is a red herring fallacy haha –  Jul 28 '23 at 18:57
  • 1
    @doot_s: Lol. Hegel's dying words were allegedly "There was only one man who ever understood me, and even he didn't understand me." See the pithy summary here https://existentialcomics.com/comic/302 Hegel is a superlative example of someone who used undisprovable & vague statements to sound profound & avoid scrutiny of his ideas, which are *extremely* difficult to pin down. He was almost more Daoist mystic than philosopher, but his influence on Marx means he cannot be ignored. – CriglCragl Jul 28 '23 at 19:49
  • thanks @CriglCragl i was about to say that as a joke, with a punchline, it would be like "to get to the other side" it is so obviously a philosophical error. but you may be right, though the quote is presumably fabricated –  Jul 28 '23 at 19:53
  • that funny to me, based on the anecdote that i asked someone if i could write my undergrad dissertation on hegel @CriglCragl and he pulled this face as if to say "the second person to understand me was insane" –  Jul 28 '23 at 19:56
  • @doot_s: You don't meet a lot of Hegel scholars.. – CriglCragl Jul 28 '23 at 20:17
  • when no-one understands me... @CriglCragl –  Jul 28 '23 at 20:25
  • @doot_s: I'd love to hear your answer to: 'Relation of dialectics, as of Hegel and Marx, toward Enlightenment liberalism' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/91665/relation-of-dialectics-as-of-hegel-and-marx-toward-enlightenment-liberalism – CriglCragl Jul 28 '23 at 21:37
  • like, no that would be beyond me @CriglCragl but thanks hah. i know my limits –  Jul 28 '23 at 21:38
  • The answer is high quality. Homed in on the sticking point like a sidewinder. Target destroyed. However, read David Lewis ... more carefully. What is he saying ... exactly? Lewis is a man, and all men crack jokes, oui? – Agent Smith Jul 29 '23 at 07:05
  • There may be even a deeper level of humor here: this form of 'defense' amounts to an own-goal, inasmuch as a theory of any depth ought to have consequences that cannot be foreseen from the outset. The 'theory' being defended here thus cannot have much substance to it. In any case, I'll update my Q to underscore that I am interested chiefly in the question of *provenance* here. – David C. Norris Aug 02 '23 at 18:53