> Eubulides wrote: > > This of course banalizes/trivializes the ascription of the term > > conspiracy. When the Dems. meet to plot strategy over legislation at > > Morton's Steak House on Prospect St. in Georgetown [DC] is that a > > conspiracy or just politics as usual? Just where/when does one draw > > the conspiracy/nonconspiracy line when one is suggesting > > narratives/explanations of political behavior by various groups and > > factions of the populace? > > > > The polysemous concept *conspiracy* is an essentially contestable/ed > > concept.
On 10/16/05, Carrol Cox wrote: > The word, like all words, points to a number of different concepts > (signifieds I believe they are called). Some but not all of those > concepts are themselves polysemous and/or contested. But the kind of > conspiracies that are claimed by those (usually) labelled conspiracy > theorists are the kind which would be labelled such in a court of law.... _all_ concepts, it seems, are contestable/ed, including the concepts of "concepts" and "contestable." (And it does depend on what the meaning of "is" is.) Saying that a concept is contestable/ed really doesn't say anything at all, except to remind us that all concepts are subjective constructs. The way to deal with this is to be very clear about how one is using the concept (without pretending that one's usage reflects the True Form whose shadow we only glimpse vaguely on the cave wall). Thus, Carrol's definition is quite useful. Of course, which definition one uses depends on the context. In the "conspiracy theory of history," it seems that a conspiracy involves some monolithic force that seems to come from outside of society and has a lot of power and doesn't face significant competition from other conspiratorial forces -- and usually (like god) works in mysterious ways. The conspiracy consists of bad guys who pull strings behind the scenes. -- Jim Devine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
