Survey--please help.

OnlyAnEgg · Post by **OnlyAnEgg** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:55 pm

jim stone wrote:No, I don't think he's married to anybody, not to God.
Nuns are married to God, brides of Christ.

Point taken; but, I still vote 'no'. The concept of 'bachelor' seems to imply someone not yet married. He's definately out of the running.

dubhlinn · Post by **dubhlinn** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 8:58 pm

I intend to follow my fathers example and be a bachelor all my life

Bedtime in Blighty.

Slan,
D.

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:26 pm

Thanks. Here's why I'm asking. The question is whether
'bachelor' and 'adult unmarried man' are
synomymous. On the face of things
'bachelor' just means 'adult unmarried man.'

But some people balk at saying the Pope, who
is plainly an adult unmarried man, is a 'bachelor,'
because they think a bachelor is an adult unmarried
man WHO IS SOCIALLY AVAILABLE TO MARRY.
The Pope is not available.

I'm wanting to know how extensive the latter intuition
is. It seems to be a minority intuition, so far here, but a significant
minority.

Denny · Post by **Denny** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:27 pm

dubhlinn wrote:I intend to follow my fathers example and be a bachelor all my life

Bedtime in Blighty.

Slan,
D.

If my mother hadn't been desperate and foolish...

Yes

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:28 pm

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:32 pm

He's married to the Church.

Besides, he (or any other priest) is not what people mean when they say "bachelor." This is common sense.

Even though a bachelor is technically an unmarried man, you don't call Popes or men in long-term (gay or straight) unmarried relationships "bachelors" because of the common sense definition that most people work from. It's generally assumed that "bachelor" means single (never married) heterosexual adult male.

For example, Stedman Graham has been dating Oprah for many, many years. Even though he is not married to her, nobody really thinks of him as a bachelor or calls him a bachelor because of the common sense understanding of the term.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor

gonzo914 · Post by **gonzo914** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 9:56 pm

Gonzonius ex cathedra dicet --

Papa innupta est. Papa adulter non est. Puella matellam agricolae dat. Mundus adulteri triquetrus sed socer bona non dat adultero. Bellum in Gallia malum, sed in matella taetrum. Hoc tantum possum dicere, non amo te.

Cynth · Post by **Cynth** » Tue Sep 26, 2006 10:16 pm

I hadn't realized this was such a hot topic:

Those who have a brief against the analytic-synthetic distinction raise problems for what seem to supporters of the distinction to be some of the clearest cases. That bachelors are unmarried seems to many to be analytically true. But to hold this seems to imply that there is a definition of "bachelor" that includes being unmarried. But critics of the analytic-synthetic distinction, such as Jerry Fodor, deny that there are true definitions (reportive, not stipulative). So there can be no definition of "bachelor". And many have noted that defining "bachelor" is not as easy as appears at first blush.

A representative line of objection is given by Michael Tye in The Imagery Debate pp. 144-5:

What, after all, is a bachelor? One answer: an unmarried male. But what of a newborn male baby? Is he a bachelor? Surely not. So, perhaps we should say that a bachelor is an unmarried male of maturity. But then what of a man who was married but is now divorced, or a man who lives in a society that does not recognize the institution of marriage? What of the pope? Is he a bachelor? What of a man who has lived with the same woman for forty years, who has had several children with her, and whose finances are interwoven with hers? Less seriously, what about the case illustrated in figure 8.4 [a Drucker cartoon of woman sitting at bar, between two male patrons, saying "I'm a bachelor myself"]

Other problem examples might include a male baboon.

From:
Note on Analyticity and the Definability of "Bachelor"
David Cole
Philosophy Department
UMD
February, 1999

Innocent Bystander · Post by **Innocent Bystander** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 1:54 am

I was going to say "no", because The Bachelors broke up , acrimoniously, when two of them decided to tell the other one his singing was rotten. And his Holiness wasn't one of them.

On the other hand...
The Pope had a confirmation (as a good Catholic).
The Pope is a mature male.
Therefore not only is the Pope a bachelor,

he is also

a CONFIRMED BACHELOR!

jim stone · Post by **jim stone** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:09 am

Cynth wrote:I hadn't realized this was such a hot topic:

Those who have a brief against the analytic-synthetic distinction raise problems for what seem to supporters of the distinction to be some of the clearest cases. That bachelors are unmarried seems to many to be analytically true. But to hold this seems to imply that there is a definition of "bachelor" that includes being unmarried. But critics of the analytic-synthetic distinction, such as Jerry Fodor, deny that there are true definitions (reportive, not stipulative). So there can be no definition of "bachelor". And many have noted that defining "bachelor" is not as easy as appears at first blush.

A representative line of objection is given by Michael Tye in The Imagery Debate pp. 144-5:

What, after all, is a bachelor? One answer: an unmarried male. But what of a newborn male baby? Is he a bachelor? Surely not. So, perhaps we should say that a bachelor is an unmarried male of maturity. But then what of a man who was married but is now divorced, or a man who lives in a society that does not recognize the institution of marriage? What of the pope? Is he a bachelor? What of a man who has lived with the same woman for forty years, who has had several children with her, and whose finances are interwoven with hers? Less seriously, what about the case illustrated in figure 8.4 [a Drucker cartoon of woman sitting at bar, between two male patrons, saying "I'm a bachelor myself"]

Other problem examples might include a male baboon.

From:
Note on Analyticity and the Definability of "Bachelor"
David Cole
Philosophy Department
UMD
February, 1999

Right. I'm attending a seminar at Washington University on the anlytic/synthetic distinction. This quotation from Cole
is helpful. Thanks.

There are sentences like 'All bachelors are unmarried'
which are true simply in virtue of the meanings of the
words. These are called 'analytic.' Given the meaning
of the words, these statements could not possibly
be false.

There are sentences like 'All bachelors are less than 12 feet
tall' that are true but not merely in virtue of the meanings
of the words. There might one day be a 12 foot bachelor,
if people get taller due to better nutrition, and the meaning
of 'bachelor' would not change thereby. These are called
'synthetic.'

The question is whether the distinction really exists.

It seems intuitive initially that 'bachelor' means 'unmarried man,'
but there do seem to be difficulties.

Thanks to all.

SteveShaw · Post by **SteveShaw** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:18 am

dubhlinn wrote:I intend to follow my fathers example and be a bachelor all my life

Slan,
D.

Like Cliff Richard followed his momma's advice? I know. I heard it in a song.

SteveShaw · Post by **SteveShaw** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 3:31 am

"A bachelor gay am I
Though I suffer from Cupid's dart
Never I vow will I say die
In spite of an aching heart..."

Maid of the Mountains

Ah, those were the days when a bachelor could be gay and still suffer from Cupid's dart...

Walden · Post by **Walden** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:20 am

avanutria · Post by **avanutria** » Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:53 am

OnlyAnEgg wrote:Is he not married to God?

When discussing same-sex marriage, many people insist that marriage is between a man and a woman. As God is neither a man not a woman, the Pope can't be married to him.

This sounds like my Semantics class.