[Serious Phil] Children and Family Resemblance

[Peter D]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505 at ...> wrote:
>
> ... I'm saying that we would need to know more of what you have in mind for "misuse."

Why? Why assume I have anything unusual in mind? I think
calling an animal that barks and wags its tail a "cat" is misuse.

> It would be like saying of something for which no market existed, that the product was a "misuse." I would rather speak of it for what it is: a sense of "dog" that cannot trade anywhere but with his parents. It can easily be called a "misuse" if the boy doesn't intend wink-wink talk with one in close quarters. One might simply say it is a poor play in that language game. Â  Â 
> 
> It wouldn't be a "misuse" if it worked, lest that idea become something prejudicial or technical. An English teacher, e.g., might call certain things a "misuse" for reasons local to her needs (socially regimenting certain behaviors). Perhaps she won't want the boy, as a teenager, to use slang ("hey dog!"). But this is neither here nor there. For this doesn't dispute that slang is communicative -- that it works -- it merely objects in the way similar that others do for want of fashion. (Not wont, Walter). And so, if misuse means, simply, some propriety code, this sense of the idea isn't germane to our discussions -- to the point being made.



Whatever. I can define "sarcasm" as a way of *using* words such
that the *use* is contrary to the standard *meaning*. That's because
"use" and "meaning" aren;t synonymous for me. How about you?
How do you account for sarcasm?