Non-literality isn’t a get-out-of-your-words-free card. There is a clear difference between saying “you appear to be in error” and “I can’t understand how anyone could think that”, and the difference is clearly expressed by the literal meanings of those words.
And to explicate “I don’t understand etc.” with “Of course I do understand how you could think that, it’s because you’re ignorant or stupid” is not an improvement.
Non-literality isn’t a get-out-of-your-words-free card. There is a clear difference between saying “you appear to be in error” and “I can’t understand how anyone could think that”, and the difference is clearly expressed by the literal meanings of those words.
Non-literalness is a get-out-of-your-words-free card when the words are normally used in conversation, by English speakers in general, to mean something non-literal. Yes, if you just invented the non-literal meaning yourself, there are limits to how far from the literal meaning you can be and still expect to be understood, but these limits do not apply when the non-literal meaning is already established usage.
And to explicate “I don’t understand etc.” with “Of course I do understand how you could think that, it’s because you’re ignorant or stupid” is not an improvement.
The original quote gives the intended meaning as “I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to...” In other words, the original rationality quote explicitly excludes the possibility of “I understand you believe it because you’re ignorant or stupid”. It misinterprets the statement as literally claiming that you don’t understand in any way whatsoever.
The point is that the quote is a bad rationality quote because it makes a misinterpretation. Whether the statement that it misinterprets is itself a good thing to say is irrelevant to the question of whether it is being misinterpreted.
Yes, if you just invented the non-literal meaning yourself, there are limits to how far from the literal meaning you can be and still expect to be understood, but these limits do not apply when the non-literal meaning is already established usage.
Established by whom? You are the one claiming that
“I don’t understand how” is synonymous, in ordinary conversation, with “the other person appears to be in error.”
These two expressions mean very different things. Notice that I am claiming that you are in error, but not saying, figuratively or literally, that I cannot understand how you could possibly think that.
Non-literalness is a get-out-of-your-words-free card when the words are normally used in conversation, by English speakers in general, to mean something non-literal.
That is not how figurative language works. I could expand on that at length, but I don’t think it’s worth it at this point.
Notice that I am claiming that you are in error, but not saying, figuratively or literally, that I cannot understand how you could possibly think that.
“A is synonymous with B” doesn’t mean “every time someone said B, they also said A”. “You’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is also synonymous with “you’re in error” and you clearly didn’t say that, either.
(Of course, “is synonymous with” means “makes the same assertion about the main topic”, not “is identical in all ways”.)
Of course, “is synonymous with” means “makes the same assertion about the main topic”
Indeed. “You’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is therefore not synonymous with “you’re in error”. The former implies the latter, but the latter does not imply even the figurative sense of the former.
If what someone is actually thinking when they say “you’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is no more than “you’re in error”, then they have used the wrong words to express their thought.
Non-literality isn’t a get-out-of-your-words-free card. There is a clear difference between saying “you appear to be in error” and “I can’t understand how anyone could think that”, and the difference is clearly expressed by the literal meanings of those words.
And to explicate “I don’t understand etc.” with “Of course I do understand how you could think that, it’s because you’re ignorant or stupid” is not an improvement.
Non-literalness is a get-out-of-your-words-free card when the words are normally used in conversation, by English speakers in general, to mean something non-literal. Yes, if you just invented the non-literal meaning yourself, there are limits to how far from the literal meaning you can be and still expect to be understood, but these limits do not apply when the non-literal meaning is already established usage.
The original quote gives the intended meaning as “I am such a superior moral being that I cannot even imagine the cognitive errors or moral turpitude that could lead someone to...” In other words, the original rationality quote explicitly excludes the possibility of “I understand you believe it because you’re ignorant or stupid”. It misinterprets the statement as literally claiming that you don’t understand in any way whatsoever.
The point is that the quote is a bad rationality quote because it makes a misinterpretation. Whether the statement that it misinterprets is itself a good thing to say is irrelevant to the question of whether it is being misinterpreted.
Established by whom? You are the one claiming that
These two expressions mean very different things. Notice that I am claiming that you are in error, but not saying, figuratively or literally, that I cannot understand how you could possibly think that.
That is not how figurative language works. I could expand on that at length, but I don’t think it’s worth it at this point.
“A is synonymous with B” doesn’t mean “every time someone said B, they also said A”. “You’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is also synonymous with “you’re in error” and you clearly didn’t say that, either.
(Of course, “is synonymous with” means “makes the same assertion about the main topic”, not “is identical in all ways”.)
Indeed. “You’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is therefore not synonymous with “you’re in error”. The former implies the latter, but the latter does not imply even the figurative sense of the former.
If what someone is actually thinking when they say “you’ve made more mistakes than a zebra has stripes” is no more than “you’re in error”, then they have used the wrong words to express their thought.