winch, peter - the idea of a social science€¦ · 42 the idea of a social science grasp of what...
TRANSCRIPT
-
40
CH
AP
TE
R T
WO
TH
E N
AT
UR
E O
F M
EA
NIN
GF
UL
BE
HA
VIO
UR
1.
Ph
ilo
sop
hy a
nd
So
cio
log
y
IN S
ecti
on
7 o
f th
e l
ast
ch
ap
ter
I tr
ied
to
in
dic
ate
in
a g
en
era
l w
ay
h
ow
p
hil
oso
ph
y,
co
nc
eiv
ed
a
s th
e
stu
dy
of
the n
atu
re o
f m
an
’s u
nd
ers
tan
din
g o
f re
ali
ty,
may
b
e ex
pecte
d to
il
lum
inate
th
e n
atu
re o
f h
um
an
inte
rre
lati
on
s
in
so
cie
ty.
Th
e
dis
cu
ssio
n
of
Wit
tgen
stein
in
S
ecti
on
s 8
an
d 9
h
as
bo
rne o
ut
that
pre
sum
pti
on
. F
or
it h
as
sho
wn
th
at
the p
hil
oso
ph
ical
elu
cid
ati
on
o
f h
um
an
in
tell
ige
nc
e,
an
d th
e n
oti
on
s
ass
ocia
ted
w
ith
th
is,
req
uir
es
that
these
n
oti
on
s b
e
pla
ced
in
th
e c
on
tex
t o
f th
e r
ela
tio
ns
betw
een
men
in
so
cie
ty.
In
so
fa
r a
s
the
re
ha
s
be
en
a
g
en
uin
e
rev
olu
tio
n in
p
hil
oso
ph
y in
re
cen
t y
ears
, p
erh
ap
s it
lies
in t
he e
mp
hasi
s o
n t
hat
fact
an
d i
n t
he p
rofo
un
d
wo
rkin
g o
ut
of
its
co
nse
qu
en
ces,
w
hic
h w
e fi
nd
in
Wit
tgen
stein
’s w
ork
. ‘W
hat
has
to b
e accep
ted
, th
e
giv
en
, is
—so
on
e c
ou
ld s
ay
—fo
rms
of
life
.’ (
37
:II,
xi,
p.
22
6e.)
I sa
id
ea
rlie
r th
at
the
re
lati
on
b
etw
ee
n
ep
iste
mo
log
y
an
d
the
p
eri
ph
era
l b
ran
ch
es
of
ph
ilo
sop
hy
was
that
the f
orm
er
co
ncern
ed
th
e g
en
era
l
co
nd
itio
ns u
nd
er
wh
ich
it
is
p
ossib
le to
sp
ea
k o
f
un
ders
tan
din
g w
hil
e t
he l
att
er
co
ncern
ed
th
e p
ecu
liar
41
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
form
s w
hic
h u
nd
ers
tan
din
g ta
kes
in p
art
icu
lar
kin
ds
of
co
nte
xt.
W
ittg
en
ste
in’s
re
ma
rk
su
gg
ests
a
po
ssib
ilit
y
of
rep
hra
sin
g
this
: w
he
rea
s
the
ph
ilo
sop
hie
s o
f sc
ien
ce,
of
art
, o
f h
isto
ry,
etc
., w
ill
hav
e th
e ta
sk o
f elu
cid
ati
ng
th
e p
ecu
liar
natu
res
of
tho
se
fo
rms
of
life
c
all
ed
‘s
cie
nc
e’,
‘a
rt’,
e
tc.,
ep
iste
mo
log
y w
ill
try
to
elu
cid
ate
wh
at
is i
nv
olv
ed
in
the n
oti
on
o
f a fo
rm o
f li
fe as
such
. W
ittg
en
stein
’s
an
aly
sis
of
the co
ncep
t o
f fo
llo
win
g a ru
le an
d h
is
ac
co
un
t o
f th
e
pe
cu
lia
r k
ind
o
f in
terp
ers
on
al
ag
reem
en
t w
hic
h t
his
inv
olv
es
is a
co
ntr
ibu
tio
n t
o t
hat
ep
iste
mo
log
ical
elu
cid
ati
on
.
Th
is c
on
clu
sio
n h
as
imp
ort
an
t c
on
seq
ue
nc
es
for
ou
r co
ncep
tio
n o
f th
e s
ocia
l st
ud
ies;
part
icu
larl
y t
he
the
ore
tic
al
pa
rt
of
ge
ne
ral
so
cio
log
y
an
d
the
fou
nd
ati
on
s o
f so
cia
l p
sych
olo
gy.
As
is w
ell
k
no
wn
,
there
h
as
alw
ay
s b
een
so
me d
isp
ute
ab
ou
t th
e ro
le
wh
ich
so
cio
log
y o
ug
ht
to p
lay
v
is-à
-vis
th
e o
the
r
so
cia
l stu
die
s.
So
me
h
av
e
tho
ug
ht
tha
t so
cio
log
y
sh
ou
ld
be
th
e
so
cia
l sc
ien
ce
p
ar
ex
ce
lle
nc
e,
syn
thesi
sin
g t
he r
esu
lts
of
specia
l so
cia
l st
ud
ies,
lik
e
eco
no
mic
an
d p
oli
tical
theo
ry,
into
a u
nif
ied
th
eo
ry o
f
socie
ty in
g
en
era
l. O
thers
, h
ow
ev
er,
h
av
e w
an
ted
to
reg
ard
so
cio
log
y s
imp
ly a
s o
ne s
ocia
l sc
ien
ce o
n t
he
sam
e l
ev
el
as
all
th
e o
thers
, co
nfi
ned
to
a r
est
ricte
d
su
bje
ct-
ma
tte
r o
f it
s o
wn
. H
ow
ev
er,
w
hic
hev
er
of
these
v
iew
s o
ne ad
op
ts,
on
e can
in
th
e en
d h
ard
ly
av
oid
in
clu
din
g
in
so
cio
log
y
a
dis
cu
ssio
n
of
the
na
ture
o
f so
cia
l p
he
no
me
na
in
g
en
era
l; a
nd
th
is is
bo
un
d t
o o
ccu
py
a s
pecia
l p
lace a
mo
ng
st t
he v
ari
ou
s
dis
cip
lin
es
dev
ote
d to
th
e st
ud
y o
f so
cie
ty.
Fo
r all
these
dis
cip
lin
es
are
in
on
e w
ay
or
an
oth
er
co
ncern
ed
wit
h s
ocia
l p
hen
om
en
a a
nd
req
uir
e,
there
fore
, a c
lear
-
42
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
gra
sp o
f w
hat
is in
vo
lved
in
th
e co
ncep
t o
f a so
cia
l
ph
en
om
en
on
. M
ore
ov
er,
all
th
e s
ub
jects
of
inv
est
igati
on
wh
ich
are
att
rib
ute
d t
oso
cio
log
y,
urb
an
ism
, ra
ce c
on
tacts
, so
cia
l st
rati
ficati
on
,o
r th
e r
ela
tio
ns
betw
een
so
cia
l co
nd
itio
ns
an
d m
en
tal
co
nst
ructi
on
s (W
isse
nss
ozi
olo
gie
), are
in
fa
ct
dif
ficu
ltto
iso
late
, an
d h
av
e t
he c
hara
cte
r o
f to
tal
ph
en
om
en
aw
hic
h a
re c
on
necte
d w
ith
so
cie
ty a
s a w
ho
le a
nd
wit
hth
e n
atu
re o
f so
cie
ty.
(2:
p.
11
9.)
Bu
t to
un
ders
tan
d t
he n
atu
re o
f so
cia
l p
hen
om
en
a i
n
gen
era
l, t
o e
lucid
ate
, th
at
is,
the c
on
cep
t o
f a ‘
form
of
life
’,
ha
s
be
en
sh
ow
n
to
be
p
rec
ise
ly
the
a
im
of
ep
iste
mo
log
y.
It
is
tru
e
tha
t th
e
ep
iste
mo
log
ist’
s
sta
rtin
g p
oin
t is
ra
the
r d
iffe
ren
t fr
om
th
at
of
the
socio
log
ist
bu
t, i
f W
ittg
en
stein
’s a
rgu
men
ts a
re s
ou
nd
,
that
is w
hat
he m
ust
so
on
er
or
late
r co
ncern
him
self
wit
h.
Th
at
mean
s th
at
the r
ela
tio
ns
betw
een
so
cio
log
y
an
d ep
iste
mo
log
y m
ust
b
e d
iffe
ren
t fr
om
, an
d v
ery
mu
ch
clo
ser
than
, w
hat
is u
suall
y i
mag
ined
to
be t
he
ca
se
. T
he
a
cc
ep
ted
v
iew
ru
ns,
I th
ink
, ro
ug
hly
a
s
foll
ow
s. A
ny
in
tell
ectu
al
dis
cip
lin
e m
ay,
at
on
e t
ime
or
an
oth
er,
ru
n in
to p
hil
oso
ph
ical
dif
ficu
ltie
s, w
hic
h
oft
en
hera
ld a
rev
olu
tio
n i
n t
he f
un
dam
en
tal
theo
ries
an
d w
hic
h fo
rm te
mp
ora
ry o
bst
acle
s in
th
e p
ath
o
f
ad
van
cin
g sc
ien
tifi
c en
qu
iry.
Th
e d
iffi
cu
ltie
s in
th
e
co
ncep
tio
n o
f si
mu
ltan
eit
y w
hic
h E
inst
ein
had
to
face
an
d
wh
ich
p
resa
ge
d
the
fo
rmu
lati
on
o
f th
e
rev
olu
tio
nary
Sp
ecia
l T
heo
ry o
f R
ela
tiv
ity,
pro
vid
e a
n
ex
am
ple
. T
ho
se
d
iffi
cu
ltie
s
bo
re
ma
ny
o
f th
e
ch
ara
cte
risti
cs
wh
ich
o
ne
a
sso
cia
tes
wit
h
ph
ilo
so
ph
ica
l p
uz
zle
me
nt
an
d
the
y
we
re
no
tab
ly
dif
fere
nt
fro
m
the
te
ch
nic
al
the
ore
tic
al
pro
ble
ms
43
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
wh
ich
are
so
lved
in
th
e n
orm
al
pro
cess
of
ad
van
cin
g
scie
nti
fic e
nq
uir
y.
No
w i
t is
oft
en
su
pp
ose
d t
hat
new
ly
dev
elo
pin
g d
iscip
lin
es,
wit
h n
o s
ett
led
basi
s o
f th
eo
ry
on
w
hic
h to
b
uil
d fu
rth
er
rese
arc
h,
are
p
art
icu
larl
y
pro
ne t
o t
hro
w u
p p
hil
oso
ph
ical
pu
zzle
s; b
ut
that
this
is a te
mp
ora
ry st
ag
e w
hic
h sh
ou
ld b
e li
ved
th
rou
gh
an
d t
hen
sh
ak
en
off
as
soo
n a
s p
oss
ible
. B
ut,
in
my
vie
w,
it w
ou
ld b
e w
ron
g t
o s
ay
th
is o
f so
cio
log
y;
for
the p
hil
oso
ph
ical
pro
ble
ms
wh
ich
ari
se t
here
are
no
t
tire
so
me
fo
reig
n
bo
die
s
wh
ich
m
ust
be
re
mo
ve
d
befo
re s
ocio
log
y c
an
ad
van
ce o
n i
ts o
wn
in
dep
en
den
t
scie
nti
fic l
ines.
On
th
e c
on
trary
, th
e c
en
tral
pro
ble
m
of
socio
log
y,
that
of
giv
ing
an
acco
un
t o
f th
e n
atu
re
of
so
cia
l p
he
no
me
na
in
g
en
era
l, it
se
lf b
elo
ng
s to
ph
ilo
sop
hy.
In f
act,
no
t to
pu
t to
o f
ine a
po
int
on
it,
this
p
art
o
f so
cio
log
y
is
rea
lly
m
isb
eg
ott
en
ep
iste
mo
log
y.
I sa
y
‘mis
be
go
tte
n’
be
ca
use
it
s
pro
ble
ms
ha
ve
b
ee
n
larg
ely
m
isc
on
str
ue
d,
an
d
the
refo
re
mis
ha
nd
led
, a
s
a
sp
ec
ies
of
sc
ien
tifi
c
pro
ble
m.
Th
e u
sual
treatm
en
t o
f la
ng
uag
e in
te
xtb
oo
ks
of
socia
l p
sych
olo
gy
sh
ow
s th
e in
ad
eq
uacie
s to
w
hic
h
this
m
ay
le
ad
. T
he p
rob
lem
o
f w
hat
lan
gu
ag
e is
is
cle
arl
y o
f v
ital
imp
ort
an
ce f
or
socio
log
y i
n t
hat,
wit
h
it,
on
e i
s fa
ce t
o f
ace w
ith
th
e w
ho
le q
uest
ion
of
the
ch
ara
cte
rist
ic w
ay
in
w
hic
h h
um
an
b
ein
gs
inte
rac
t
wit
h e
ach
oth
er
in s
ocie
ty.
Yet
the i
mp
ort
an
t q
uest
ion
s
are
usu
all
y l
eft
un
tou
ch
ed
. O
ne f
ind
s ex
am
ple
s o
f th
e
way
s in
wh
ich
an
alo
go
us
co
ncep
ts m
ay
dif
fer
in t
he
lan
gu
ag
es
of
dif
fere
nt
socie
ties
wit
h,
perh
ap
s, so
me
ind
ica
tio
n o
f th
e w
ay
s in
w
hic
h th
ese
d
iffe
ren
ce
s
co
rresp
on
d t
o d
iffe
ren
ces
in t
he m
ain
in
tere
sts
wh
ich
are
c
ha
rac
teri
sti
c
of
the
li
fe
ca
rrie
d
on
in
th
ose
-
44
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
so
cie
tie
s.
All
th
is
ca
n
be
in
tere
sti
ng
a
nd
ev
en
illu
min
ati
ng
if
bro
ug
ht
forw
ard
by
way
of
illu
stra
tio
n
in d
iscu
ssin
g w
hat
it i
s, a
fter
all
, fo
r p
eo
ple
to
hav
e a
lan
gu
ag
e
at
all
. B
ut
this
o
ne
h
ard
ly
ev
er
me
ets
.
Inste
ad
, th
e n
oti
on
o
f h
av
ing
a
la
ng
ua
ge
, a
nd
th
e
no
tio
ns
tha
t g
o a
lon
g w
ith
th
at:
su
ch
a
s m
ea
nin
g,
inte
llig
ibil
ity,
an
d s
o o
n—
these
are
tak
en
fo
r g
ran
ted
.
Th
e im
pre
ssio
n g
iven
is
th
at
firs
t th
ere
is
la
ng
uag
e
(wit
h w
ord
s h
av
ing
a m
ean
ing
, st
ate
men
ts c
ap
ab
le o
f
be
ing
tr
ue
o
r fa
lse
) a
nd
th
en
, th
is b
ein
g g
ive
n,
it
co
me
s to
e
nte
r in
to h
um
an
re
lati
on
ship
s a
nd
to
b
e
mo
dif
ied
b
y th
e p
art
icu
lar
hu
man
re
lati
on
ship
s in
to
wh
ich
it
d
oes
so en
ter.
Wh
at
is m
isse
d is
th
at
tho
se
ve
ry
ca
teg
ori
es
of
me
an
ing
, e
tc.,
a
re
log
ica
lly
de
pe
nd
en
t fo
r th
eir
se
nse
o
n
so
cia
l in
tera
cti
on
betw
een
men
. S
ocia
l p
sych
olo
gis
ts s
om
eti
mes
pay
lip
-
se
rvic
e
to
this
. W
e
are
to
ld,
for
insta
nc
e,
tha
t
‘Co
ncep
ts a
re p
rod
ucts
of
inte
racti
on
of
man
y p
eo
ple
carr
yin
g o
n t
he i
mp
ort
an
t b
usi
ness
of
liv
ing
to
geth
er
in g
rou
ps’
(3
0:
p.
45
6).
Bu
t th
e a
uth
ors
go
no
fu
rth
er
wit
h
this
th
an
to
re
ma
rk
on
th
e
wa
y
in
wh
ich
pa
rtic
ula
r co
ncep
ts m
ay
refl
ect
the p
ecu
liar
life
of
the
so
cie
ty
in
wh
ich
th
ey
a
re
cu
rre
nt.
T
he
re
is
no
dis
cu
ssio
n o
f h
ow
th
e v
ery
ex
iste
nc
e o
f c
on
ce
pts
dep
en
ds
on
gro
up
-lif
e.
An
d t
hey
sh
ow
th
at
they
do
no
t
un
ders
tan
d t
he f
orc
e o
f th
is q
uest
ion
wh
en
th
ey
sp
eak
of
co
nc
ep
ts ‘e
mb
od
yin
g g
en
era
liz
ati
on
s’;
fo
r o
ne
ca
nn
ot
ex
pla
in w
ha
t c
on
ce
pts
a
re in
te
rms o
f th
e
no
tio
n o
f a g
en
era
lizati
on
. P
eo
ple
d
o n
ot
firs
t m
ak
e
gen
era
lizati
on
s an
d t
hen
em
bo
dy
th
em
in
co
ncep
ts:
it
is o
nly
by
vir
tue o
f th
eir
po
ssess
ion
of
co
ncep
ts t
hat
they
are
ab
le t
o m
ak
e g
en
era
lizati
on
s at
all
.
45
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
2.
Mea
nin
gfu
l B
eh
avio
ur
Wit
tgen
stein
’s a
cco
un
t o
f w
hat
it i
s to
fo
llo
w a
ru
le
is,
for
ob
vio
us
reaso
ns,
giv
en
pri
ncip
all
y w
ith
an
ey
e
to e
lucid
ati
ng
th
e n
atu
re o
f la
ng
uag
e.
I h
av
e n
ow
to
sh
ow
h
ow
th
is tr
ea
tme
nt
ma
y sh
ed
li
gh
t o
n o
the
r
form
s o
f h
um
an
in
tera
cti
on
besi
des
speech
. T
he f
orm
s
of
acti
vit
y in
q
uest
ion
are
, n
atu
rall
y,
tho
se to
w
hic
h
an
alo
go
us
cate
go
ries
are
ap
pli
cab
le:
tho
se,
that
is,
of
wh
ich
we c
an
sen
sib
ly s
ay
th
at
they
hav
e a
mea
nin
g,
a
sym
bo
lic ch
ara
cte
r. In
th
e w
ord
s o
f M
ax
Web
er,
w
e
are
co
ncern
ed
wit
h h
um
an
beh
av
iou
r ‘i
f an
d i
n s
o f
ar
as
the ag
en
t o
r ag
en
ts ass
ocia
te a su
bje
cti
ve se
nse
.
(Sin
n)
wit
h
it’.
(3
3:
Ch
ap
ter
I.)
I w
an
t n
ow
to
co
nsi
der
wh
at
is i
nv
olv
ed
in
th
is i
dea o
f m
ean
ing
ful
beh
av
iou
r.
Web
er
say
s th
at
the ‘s
en
se’
of
wh
ich
h
e sp
eak
s is
som
eth
ing
w
hic
h is
‘s
ub
jecti
vely
in
ten
ded
’; an
d h
e
say
s th
at
the n
oti
on
of
mean
ing
ful
beh
av
iou
r is
clo
sely
ass
oc
iate
d
wit
h
no
tio
ns
lik
e
mo
tiv
e
an
d
rea
so
n.
‘“M
oti
ve
”
me
an
s a
m
ea
nin
gfu
l c
on
fig
ura
tio
n
of
cir
cu
mst
an
ces
wh
ich
, to
th
e a
gen
t o
r o
bse
rver,
ap
pears
as
a m
ean
ing
ful
“re
aso
n” (
Gru
nd
) o
f th
e b
eh
av
iou
r in
qu
est
ion
.’ (
Ibid
.)
Let
us
co
nsi
der
som
e e
xam
ple
s o
f acti
on
s w
hic
h a
re
perf
orm
ed
fo
r a
re
aso
n.
Su
pp
ose
th
at
it is
sa
id o
f a
cert
ain
p
ers
on
, N
, th
at
he v
ote
d L
ab
ou
r at
the la
st
Gen
era
l E
lecti
on
b
ecau
se h
e th
ou
gh
t th
at
a L
ab
ou
r
go
ve
rnm
en
t w
ou
ld
be
th
e
mo
st
lik
ely
to
p
rese
rve
ind
ust
rial
peace.
Wh
at
kin
d o
f ex
pla
nati
on
is
this
? T
he
cle
are
st case
is
th
at
in w
hic
h N
, p
rio
r to
v
oti
ng
, h
as
dis
cu
ssed
th
e p
ros
an
d c
on
s o
f v
oti
ng
Lab
ou
r an
d h
as
ex
pli
cit
ly c
om
e t
o t
he c
on
clu
sio
n:
‘I w
ill
vo
te L
ab
ou
r
-
46
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
be
ca
use
th
at
is th
e b
est
w
ay
to
p
rese
rve
in
du
stri
al
peace’.
Th
at
is a
para
dig
m c
ase
of
som
eo
ne p
erf
orm
ing
an
acti
on
fo
r a r
easo
n.
To
say
th
is i
s n
ot
to d
en
y t
hat
in
som
e case
s, ev
en
w
here
N h
as
go
ne th
rou
gh
su
ch
an
ex
pli
cit
p
rocess
o
f re
aso
nin
g,
it m
ay
b
e p
oss
ible
to
dis
pu
te w
heth
er
the r
easo
n h
e h
as
giv
en
is
in f
act
the
real
reaso
n f
or
his
beh
avio
ur.
Bu
t th
ere
is
very
oft
en
no
roo
m f
or
do
ub
t; a
nd
if
this
were
no
t so
, th
e i
dea o
f a
rea
son
fo
r a
n a
cti
on
wo
uld
be i
n d
an
ger
of
co
mp
lete
ly
losi
ng
it
s se
nse
. (T
his
p
oin
t w
ill
ass
um
e
gre
ate
r
imp
ort
an
ce su
bse
qu
en
tly,
wh
en
I
co
me to
d
iscu
ss th
e
wo
rk o
f P
are
to.)
Th
e t
yp
e o
f case
wh
ich
I h
av
e t
ak
en
as
a p
ara
dig
m i
s
no
t th
e o
nly
on
e c
ov
ere
d b
y W
eb
er’
s co
ncep
t. B
ut
the
para
dig
m e
xh
ibit
s cle
arl
y o
ne f
eatu
re w
hic
h I
beli
eve
to h
av
e a m
ore
g
en
era
l im
po
rtan
ce.
Su
pp
ose
th
at
an
ob
serv
er,
O,
is o
fferi
ng
th
e a
bo
ve e
xp
lan
ati
on
fo
r N
’s
hav
ing
vo
ted
Lab
ou
r: t
hen
it
sho
uld
be n
ote
d t
hat
the
forc
e o
f O
’s ex
pla
na
tio
n re
sts
on
th
e fa
ct
tha
t th
e
co
ncep
ts w
hic
h a
pp
ear
in i
t m
ust
be g
rasp
ed
no
t m
ere
ly
by
O
an
d h
is h
eare
rs,
bu
t als
o b
y N
h
imse
lf.
N m
ust
hav
e so
me id
ea o
f w
hat
it is
to
‘p
rese
rve in
du
stri
al
peace’
an
d o
f a c
on
necti
on
betw
een
th
is a
nd
th
e k
ind
of
go
vern
men
t w
hic
h h
e ex
pects
to
b
e in
p
ow
er
if
La
bo
ur
is
ele
cte
d.
(Fo
r m
y
pre
sen
t p
urp
ose
s it
is
un
necess
ary
to
rais
e t
he q
uest
ion
wh
eth
er
N’s
beli
efs
in
a p
art
icu
lar
inst
an
ce a
re t
rue o
r n
ot.
)
No
t all
case
s o
f m
ean
ing
ful
beh
avio
ur
are
as
cle
ar-
cu
t as
this
. H
ere
are
so
me in
term
ed
iate
ex
am
ple
s. N
may
no
t, p
rio
r to
cast
ing
his
vo
te,
hav
e f
orm
ula
ted
an
y
rea
son
fo
r v
oti
ng
a
s h
e
do
es.
B
ut
this
d
oe
s n
ot
necess
ari
ly p
reclu
de th
e p
oss
ibil
ity
o
f sa
yin
g th
at
he
has
a r
easo
n f
or
vo
tin
g L
ab
ou
r an
d o
f sp
ecif
yin
g t
hat
47
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
rea
son
. A
nd
in
th
is
ca
se,
just
a
s m
uc
h
as
in
the
para
dig
m,
the accep
tab
ilit
y o
f su
ch
an
ex
pla
nati
on
is
co
nti
ng
en
t o
n N
’s g
rasp
of
the c
on
cep
ts c
on
tain
ed
in
it.
If N
do
es
no
t g
rasp
th
e c
on
cep
t o
f in
du
stri
al
peace i
t
mu
st b
e se
nse
less
to
sa
y th
at
his
re
aso
n fo
r d
oin
g
an
yth
ing
is
a d
esi
re t
o s
ee i
nd
ust
rial
peace p
rom
ote
d,
A
typ
e
of
ca
se
ev
en
fa
rth
er
rem
ov
ed
fr
om
m
y
pa
rad
igm
is
th
at
dis
cu
sse
d
by
F
reu
d
in
Th
e
Psy
ch
op
ath
olo
gy o
f E
very
da
y L
ife.
N f
org
ets
to
po
st a
lett
er
an
d in
sist
s, ev
en
aft
er
refl
ecti
on
, th
at
this
w
as
‘ju
st a
n o
ve
rsig
ht’
a
nd
h
ad
n
o re
aso
n.
A F
reu
dia
n
ob
serv
er
mig
ht
insi
st t
hat
N ‘
mu
st h
av
e h
ad
a r
easo
n’
ev
en
th
ou
gh
it
w
as
no
t a
pp
are
nt
to
N:
su
gg
esti
ng
perh
ap
s th
at
N u
nco
nsc
iou
sly
co
nn
ecte
d t
he p
ost
ing
of
the le
tter
wit
h so
meth
ing
in
h
is li
fe w
hic
h is
p
ain
ful
an
d w
hic
h h
e w
an
ts to
su
pp
ress
. In
Web
eri
an
te
rms,
Fre
ud
cla
ssif
ies
as
‘mean
ing
full
y d
irecte
d’
(sin
nh
aft
ori
en
tiert
) acti
on
s w
hic
h h
av
e n
o se
nse
at
all
to
th
e
casu
al
ob
serv
er.
Web
er
seem
s to
refe
r to
case
s o
f th
is
sort
w
hen
, in
h
is d
iscu
ssio
n o
f b
ord
erl
ine case
s, h
e
speak
s o
f acti
on
s th
e s
en
se o
f w
hic
h i
s ap
pare
nt
on
ly
‘to
th
e e
xp
ert
’. T
his
mean
s th
at
his
ch
ara
cte
rizati
on
of
Sin
n a
s so
me
thin
g ‘s
ub
jec
tiv
ely
in
ten
de
d’
mu
st b
e
ap
pro
ach
ed
wari
ly:
mo
re w
ari
ly,
for
inst
an
ce t
han
it
is
ap
pro
ac
he
d
by
M
orr
is
Gin
sbe
rg,
wh
o
ap
pe
ars
to
ass
um
e th
at
We
be
r is
sa
yin
g th
at
the
so
cio
log
ist’
s
un
ders
tan
din
g o
f th
e b
eh
av
iou
r o
f o
ther
peo
ple
m
ust
rest
o
n
an
a
na
log
y
wit
h
his
o
wn
in
tro
spe
cti
ve
ex
peri
en
ce.
(See 1
1:
pp
. 1
53
ff.
)Th
is m
isu
nd
ers
tan
din
g
of
Web
er
is v
ery
co
mm
on
bo
th a
mo
ng
his
cri
tics
an
d
am
on
g h
is v
ulg
ari
zin
g f
oll
ow
ers
; I
wil
l sa
y m
ore
ab
ou
t
it
at
a
late
r st
ag
e.
Bu
t W
eb
er’
s in
sist
en
ce
o
n
the
imp
ort
an
ce
o
f th
e su
bje
cti
ve
p
oin
t o
f v
iew
c
an
b
e
-
48
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
inte
rpre
ted
in
a w
ay
wh
ich
is
no
t o
pen
to
Gin
sberg
’s
ob
jec
tio
ns:
h
e
ca
n
be
ta
ke
n
as
me
an
ing
th
at
ev
en
ex
pla
nati
on
s o
f th
e F
reu
dia
n ty
pe,
if th
ey
are
to
b
e
accep
tab
le,
mu
st b
e in
te
rms
of
co
ncep
ts w
hic
h are
fam
ilia
r to
th
e ag
en
t as
well
as
to th
e o
bse
rve
r. It
wo
uld
mak
e n
o s
en
se t
o s
ay
th
at
N’s
om
issi
on
to
po
st a
lett
er
to
X
(in
se
ttle
me
nt,
sa
y,
of
a
de
bt)
w
as
an
ex
pre
ssio
n o
f N
’s u
nco
nsc
iou
s re
sen
tmen
t ag
ain
st X
fo
r
hav
ing
b
ee
n p
rom
ote
d o
ve
r h
is h
ea
d,
if N
d
id n
ot
him
self
u
nd
ers
tan
d
wh
at
wa
s m
ea
nt
by
‘o
bta
inin
g
pro
mo
tio
n
ov
er
som
eb
od
y’s
h
ea
d’.
It
is
w
ort
h
men
tio
nin
g h
ere
to
o th
at,
in
se
ek
ing
ex
pla
nati
on
s o
f
this
so
rt i
n t
he c
ou
rse o
f p
sych
oth
era
py,
Fre
ud
ian
s tr
y
to g
et
the p
ati
en
t h
imse
lf t
o r
eco
gn
ize t
he v
ali
dit
y o
f
the p
roff
ere
d e
xp
lan
ati
on
; th
at
this
in
deed
is
alm
ost
a
co
nd
itio
n
of
its
be
ing
a
cc
ep
ted
a
s th
e
‘rig
ht’
ex
pla
nati
on
.
Th
e c
ate
go
ry o
f m
ean
ing
ful
beh
av
iou
r ex
ten
ds
als
o
to a
cti
on
s fo
r w
hic
h th
e a
ge
nt
ha
s n
o ‘r
ea
so
n’
or
‘mo
tiv
e’
at
all
in
an
y o
f th
e s
en
ses
so f
ar
dis
cu
ssed
. In
the f
irst
ch
ap
ter
of
Wir
tsch
aft
un
d G
ese
llsc
ha
ft W
eb
er
co
ntr
asts
m
ea
nin
gfu
l a
cti
on
w
ith
a
cti
on
w
hic
h
is
‘pu
rely
reacti
ve’
(blo
ss r
ea
kti
v)
an
d s
ay
s th
at
pu
rely
tra
dit
ion
al
be
hav
iou
r is
o
n th
e b
ord
erl
ine
b
etw
ee
n
these
tw
o cate
go
ries.
B
ut,
as
Talc
ott
P
ars
on
s p
oin
ts
ou
t, W
eb
er
is n
ot
co
nsi
sten
t in
w
hat
he sa
ys
ab
ou
t
this
. S
om
eti
me
s
he
se
em
s
to
reg
ard
tr
ad
itio
na
l
beh
av
iou
r as
sim
ply
a sp
ecie
s o
f h
ab
it,
wh
ere
as
at
oth
er
tim
es
he s
ees
it a
s ‘a
ty
pe o
f so
cia
l acti
on
, it
s
tra
dit
ion
ali
sm
c
on
sis
tin
g
in
the
fi
xit
y
of
ce
rta
in
esse
nti
als
, th
eir
im
mu
nit
y
fro
m
rati
on
al
or
oth
er
cri
ticis
m’.
(2
4:
Ch
ap
ter
XV
I.)
Eco
no
mic
b
eh
av
iou
r
rela
ted
to
a
fi
xe
d st
an
da
rd o
f li
vin
g is
c
ite
d a
s a
n
49
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
ex
am
ple
: b
eh
av
iou
r, th
at
is,
wh
ere
a m
an
d
oes
no
t
ex
plo
it a
n i
ncre
ase
in
th
e p
rod
ucti
ve c
ap
acit
ies
of
his
lab
ou
r in
ord
er
to r
ais
e h
is s
tan
dard
of
liv
ing
bu
t d
oes
less
w
ork
in
stead
. P
ars
on
s re
mark
s th
at
trad
itio
n in
this
se
nse
is
n
ot
to b
e eq
uate
d w
ith
m
ere
h
ab
it,
bu
t
has
a n
orm
ati
ve c
ha
rac
ter.
T
ha
t is
, th
e tr
ad
itio
n is
reg
ard
ed
as
a s
tan
dard
wh
ich
dir
ects
ch
oic
es
betw
een
alt
ern
ati
ve a
cti
on
s. A
s su
ch
it
cle
arl
y f
all
s w
ith
in t
he
cate
go
ry o
f th
e s
inn
ha
ft.
Su
pp
ose
th
at
N v
ote
s L
ab
ou
r w
ith
ou
t d
eli
bera
tin
g
an
d
wit
ho
ut
sub
seq
ue
ntl
y
be
ing
a
ble
to
o
ffe
r a
ny
reaso
ns,
ho
wev
er
hard
he i
s p
ress
ed
. S
up
po
se t
hat
he i
s
sim
ply
fo
llo
win
g w
ith
ou
t q
uest
ion
th
e e
xam
ple
of
his
fath
er
an
d h
is f
rien
ds,
wh
o h
av
e a
lway
s v
ote
d L
ab
ou
r.
(Th
is case
m
ust
b
e d
isti
ng
uis
hed
fr
om
th
at
in w
hic
h
N’s
re
aso
n fo
r v
oti
ng
L
ab
ou
r is
th
at
his
fa
ther
an
d
frie
nd
s h
av
e a
lway
s d
on
e s
o.)
Now
alt
ho
ug
h N
do
es
no
t
act
here
fo
r an
y re
aso
n,
his
act
stil
l h
as
a d
efi
nit
e
sen
se.
Wh
at
he d
oes
is n
ot
sim
ply
to
mak
e a
mark
on
a
pie
ce o
f p
ap
er;
he i
s ca
stin
g a
vo
te.
An
d w
hat
I w
an
t to
ask
is,
wh
at
giv
es
his
acti
on
th
is s
en
se,
rath
er
than
, sa
y,
that
of
bein
g a
mo
ve i
n a
gam
e o
r p
art
of
a r
eli
gio
us
ritu
al.
M
ore
g
en
era
lly,
by
w
ha
t c
rite
ria
d
o
we
dis
tin
gu
ish
acts
wh
ich
hav
e a
sen
se f
rom
th
ose
wh
ich
do
no
t?
In th
e p
ap
er
en
titl
ed
R
.Sta
mm
lers
‘U
eb
erw
ind
un
g’
de
r m
ate
ria
listi
sch
en
G
esch
ich
tsa
uff
assu
ng
, W
eb
er
co
nsi
ders
th
e h
yp
oth
eti
cal
case
o
f tw
o ‘n
on
-so
cia
l’
be
ing
s m
ee
tin
g
an
d,
in
a
pu
rely
p
hy
sic
al
sen
se,
‘ex
ch
an
gin
g’
ob
jects
. (S
ee 3
4.)
Th
is o
ccu
rren
ce,
he
say
s, is
co
nceiv
ab
le as
an
act
of
eco
no
mic
ex
ch
an
ge
on
ly i
f it
has
a s
en
se.
He e
xp
an
ds
this
by
say
ing
th
at
the p
rese
nt
acti
on
s o
f th
e tw
o m
en
m
ust
carr
y w
ith
-
50
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
the
m,
or
rep
rese
nt,
a
re
gu
lati
on
o
f th
eir
fu
ture
beh
av
iou
r. A
cti
on
w
ith
a se
nse
is
sy
mb
oli
c:
it g
oes
tog
eth
er
wit
h c
ert
ain
oth
er
acti
on
s in
th
e s
en
se t
hat
it
co
mm
its
the a
gen
t to
beh
av
ing
in
on
e w
ay
rath
er
than
an
oth
er
in t
he f
utu
re.
Th
is n
oti
on
of
‘bein
g c
om
mit
ted
’
is m
ost
o
bv
iou
sly
ap
pro
pri
ate
w
here
w
e are
d
eali
ng
wit
h
ac
tio
ns
wh
ich
h
av
e
an
im
me
dia
te
soc
ial
sig
nif
ica
nc
e,
lik
e
ec
on
om
ic
ex
ch
an
ge
o
r p
rom
ise
-
keep
ing
. B
ut
it a
pp
lies
als
o t
o m
ean
ing
ful
beh
av
iou
r o
f
a m
ore
‘p
riv
ate
’ n
atu
re.
Th
us,
to
st
ay
w
ith
ex
am
ple
s
use
d b
y W
eb
er,
if
N p
laces
a s
lip
of
pap
er
betw
een
th
e
leav
es
of
a
bo
ok
h
e
ca
n
be
sa
id
to
be
‘u
sin
g
a
bo
ok
mark
’ o
nly
if
h
e acts
w
ith
th
e id
ea o
f u
sin
g th
e
slip
to
dete
rmin
e w
here
he s
hall
sta
rt r
e-r
ead
ing
. T
his
do
es
no
t m
ean
th
at
he m
ust
necess
ari
ly a
ctu
all
y s
o u
se
it i
n t
he f
utu
re (
tho
ug
h t
hat
is t
he p
ara
dig
m c
ase
); t
he
po
int
is t
hat
if h
e d
oes
no
t, s
om
e s
pecia
l ex
pla
nati
on
wil
l b
e c
all
ed
fo
r, s
uch
as
that
he f
org
ot,
ch
an
ged
his
min
d,
or
go
t ti
red
of
the b
oo
k.
Th
e n
oti
on
of
bein
g c
om
mit
ted
by
wh
at
I d
o n
ow
to
do
ing
so
meth
ing
els
e i
n t
he f
utu
re i
s id
en
tical
in f
orm
wit
h
the
c
on
ne
cti
on
b
etw
ee
n
a
de
fin
itio
n
an
d
the
sub
seq
uen
t u
se o
f th
e w
ord
defi
ned
, w
hic
h I
dis
cu
ssed
in
the
la
st
ch
ap
ter.
It
fo
llo
ws
tha
t I
ca
n
on
ly
be
co
mm
itte
d i
n t
he f
utu
re b
y w
hat
I d
o n
ow
if
my
pre
sen
t
act
is t
he a
pp
lica
tio
n o
f a
ru
le.
No
w a
cco
rdin
g t
o t
he
arg
um
en
t o
f th
e la
st c
ha
pte
r, th
is is
p
oss
ible
o
nly
wh
ere
th
e act
in q
uest
ion
h
as
a re
lati
on
to
a so
cia
l
co
nte
xt:
th
is m
ust
be t
rue e
ven
of
the m
ost
pri
vate
acts
,
if,
that
is,
they
are
mean
ing
ful.
Le
t u
s
retu
rn
to
N’s
e
xe
rcis
e
of
his
v
ote
: it
s
po
ssib
ilit
y r
est
s o
n t
wo
pre
sup
po
siti
on
s. I
n t
he f
irst
pla
ce
, N
m
ust
liv
e in
a
so
cie
ty w
hic
h h
as c
ert
ain
51
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
specif
ic p
oli
tical
inst
itu
tio
ns—
a p
arl
iam
en
t w
hic
h i
s
co
nst
itu
ted
in
a c
ert
ain
way
an
d a
go
vern
men
t w
hic
h
is re
late
d in
a cert
ain
w
ay
to
th
e p
arl
iam
en
t. If
h
e
liv
es
in
a
so
cie
ty
wh
ose
p
oli
tic
al
str
uc
ture
is
patr
iarc
hal,
it
wil
l cle
arl
y m
ak
e n
o s
en
se t
o s
peak
of
him
as
‘vo
tin
g’
for
a p
art
icu
lar
go
vern
men
t, h
ow
ev
er
mu
ch
his
acti
on
may
rese
mb
le i
n a
pp
eara
nce t
hat
of
a v
ote
r in
a
c
ou
ntr
y w
ith
a
n e
lec
ted
g
ov
ern
me
nt.
Seco
nd
ly,
N m
ust
him
self
hav
e a
cert
ain
fam
ilia
rity
wit
h
tho
se
in
sti
tuti
on
s.
His
a
ct
mu
st
be
a
pa
rtic
ipa
tio
n
in
the
p
oli
tic
al
life
o
f th
e
co
un
try
,
wh
ich
p
resu
pp
ose
s
tha
t h
e
mu
st
be
a
wa
re
of
the
sym
bo
lic r
ela
tio
n b
etw
een
wh
at
he i
s d
oin
g n
ow
an
d
the
g
ov
ern
me
nt
wh
ich
c
om
es in
to p
ow
er
aft
er
the
ele
cti
on
. T
he fo
rce o
f th
is co
nd
itio
n b
eco
mes
mo
re
ap
pa
ren
t in
re
lati
on
to
c
ase
s
wh
ere
‘d
em
oc
rati
c
insti
tuti
on
s’
ha
ve
b
ee
n
imp
ose
d
by
a
lie
n
ad
min
istr
ato
rs o
n so
cie
tie
s to
w
hic
h su
ch
w
ay
s o
f
co
nd
ucti
ng
po
liti
cal
life
are
fo
reig
n.
Th
e i
nh
ab
itan
ts
of
such
a c
ou
ntr
y m
ay
perh
ap
s b
e c
ajo
led
in
to g
oin
g
thro
ug
h th
e m
oti
on
s o
f m
ark
ing
sl
ips
of
pap
er
an
d
dro
pp
ing
th
em
in
to b
ox
es,
bu
t, i
f w
ord
s are
to
reta
in
an
y
me
an
ing
, th
ey
c
an
no
t b
e
sa
id
to
be
‘v
oti
ng
’
un
less
th
ey
hav
e s
om
e c
on
cep
tio
n o
f th
e s
ign
ific
an
ce
of
wh
at
they
are
do
ing
. T
his
rem
ain
s tr
ue e
ven
if
the
go
vern
men
t w
hic
h c
om
es
into
po
wer
do
es
so i
n f
act
as
a r
esu
lt o
f th
e ‘
vo
tes’
cast
.
3.
Acti
vit
ies
an
d P
recep
ts
I h
av
e
cla
ime
d
tha
t th
e
an
aly
sis
of
me
an
ing
ful
beh
av
iou
r m
ust
all
ot
a c
en
tral
role
to
th
e n
oti
on
of
a
rule
; th
at
all
beh
av
iou
r w
hic
h i
s m
ean
ing
ful
(th
ere
fore
-
52
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
all
sp
ecif
icall
y h
um
an
b
eh
av
iou
r) is
ip
so fa
cto
ru
le-
go
vern
ed
. It
m
ay
n
ow
b
e o
bje
cte
d th
at
this
w
ay
o
f
speak
ing
blu
rs a
necess
ary
dis
tin
cti
on
: th
at
som
e k
ind
s
of
acti
vit
y i
nv
olv
e t
he p
art
icip
an
t in
th
e o
bse
rvan
ce o
f
rule
s, w
hil
st o
thers
do
no
t. T
he f
ree-t
hin
kin
g a
narc
his
t,
for
ex
am
ple
, cert
ain
ly d
oes
no
t li
ve a li
fe w
hic
h is
cir
cu
msc
rib
ed
by
ru
les
in t
he s
am
e s
en
se a
s d
oes
the
mo
nk
or
the s
old
ier;
is
it n
ot
wro
ng
to
su
bsu
me t
hese
very
d
iffe
ren
t m
od
es
of
life
u
nd
er
on
e fu
nd
am
en
tal
cate
go
ry?
Th
is o
bje
cti
on
cert
ain
ly s
how
s th
at
we m
ust
ex
erc
ise
care
in
th
e u
se w
e m
ak
e o
f th
e n
oti
on
of
a r
ule
; b
ut
it
do
es
no
t sh
ow
th
at
the w
ay
of
speak
ing
wh
ich
I h
av
e
ad
op
ted
is
imp
rop
er
or
un
illu
min
ati
ng
. It
is
imp
ort
an
t
to n
oti
ce t
hat,
in
th
e s
en
se i
n w
hic
h I
am
sp
eak
ing
of
rule
s,
it
is
just
a
s tr
ue
to
sp
ea
k
of
the
a
na
rch
ist
foll
ow
ing
ru
les
in w
hat
he d
oes
as
it i
s to
say
th
e s
am
e
thin
g o
f th
e m
on
k.
Th
e d
iffe
ren
ce b
etw
een
th
ese
tw
o
kin
ds
of
men
is
no
t th
at
the o
ne f
oll
ow
s ru
les
an
d t
he
oth
er
do
es
no
t; i
t li
es
in t
he d
ivers
e k
ind
s o
f ru
le w
hic
h
ea
ch
re
spe
cti
ve
ly
foll
ow
s.
Th
e
mo
nk
’s
life
is
cir
cu
msc
rib
ed
b
y ru
les
of
beh
av
iou
r w
hic
h are
b
oth
ex
pli
cit
an
d t
igh
tly
dra
wn
: th
ey
leav
e a
s li
ttle
ro
om
as
po
ssib
le f
or
ind
ivid
ual
ch
oic
e i
n s
itu
ati
on
s w
hic
h c
all
for
acti
on
. T
he a
narc
his
t, o
n t
he o
ther
han
d,
esc
hew
s
ex
pli
cit
no
rms
as
far
as
po
ssib
le a
nd
pri
des
him
self
on
co
nsi
deri
ng
all
cla
ims
for
acti
on
‘o
n t
heir
meri
ts’:
th
at
is,
his
ch
oic
e i
s n
ot
dete
rmin
ed
in
ad
van
ce f
or
him
by
the r
ule
he i
s fo
llow
ing
. B
ut
that
do
es
no
t m
ean
th
at
we
can
eli
min
ate
alt
og
eth
er
the id
ea o
f a ru
le fr
om
th
e
de
scri
pti
on
o
f h
is
be
hav
iou
r.
We
c
an
no
t d
o
this
becau
se,
if I
may
be p
erm
itte
d a
sig
nif
ican
t p
leo
nasm
,
the a
narc
his
t’s
way
of
life
is
a w
ay o
f li
fe.
It i
s to
be
53
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
dis
tin
gu
ish
ed
, fo
r in
sta
nc
e,
fro
m
the
p
oin
tle
ss
be
hav
iou
r o
f a
b
ers
erk
lu
na
tic
. T
he
a
na
rch
ist
ha
s
reaso
ns
for
acti
ng
as
he d
oes;
he m
akes
a p
oin
t o
f n
ot
bein
g g
ov
ern
ed
b
y ex
pli
cit
, ri
gid
n
orm
s. A
lth
ou
gh
h
e
reta
ins
his
fr
ee
do
m
of
ch
oic
e,
ye
t th
ey
a
re
stil
l
sig
nif
ican
t ch
oic
es
that
he m
ak
es:
th
ey
are
gu
ided
by
co
nsi
de
rati
on
s, a
nd
h
e m
ay
h
av
e g
oo
d re
aso
ns
for
ch
oo
sin
g o
ne co
urs
e ra
ther
than
an
oth
er.
An
d th
ese
no
tio
ns,
w
hic
h
are
e
sse
nti
al
in
de
scri
bin
g
the
an
arc
his
t’s
mo
de o
f b
eh
avio
ur,
p
resu
pp
ose
th
e n
oti
on
of
a r
ule
.
An
a
na
log
y m
ay
h
elp
h
ere
. In
le
arn
ing
to
w
rite
En
gli
sh th
ere
a
re a
n
um
be
r o
f fa
irly
c
ut-
an
d-d
rie
d
gra
mm
ati
cal
rule
s w
hic
h o
ne a
cq
uir
es,
su
ch
as
that
it
is w
ron
g to
fo
llo
w a p
lura
l su
bje
ct
wit
h a si
ng
ula
r
verb
. T
hese
co
rresp
on
d r
ou
gh
ly t
o t
he e
xp
licit
no
rms
go
vern
ing
mo
nast
ic l
ife.
In t
erm
s o
f co
rrect
gra
mm
ar
on
e d
oe
s n
ot
hav
e a
c
ho
ice
b
etw
ee
n w
riti
ng
‘t
hey
were
’ an
d ‘
they
was’
: if
on
e c
an
wri
te g
ram
mati
call
y
the q
uest
ion
of
wh
ich
of
these
ex
pre
ssio
ns
on
e s
ho
uld
use
ju
st d
oes
no
t ari
se.
Bu
t th
is i
s n
ot
the o
nly
kin
d o
f
thin
g o
ne
le
arn
s; o
ne
a
lso
le
arn
s to
fo
llo
w c
ert
ain
sty
list
ic c
an
on
s, a
nd
th
ese
, w
hil
e t
hey
gu
ide t
he w
ay
in w
hic
h o
ne w
rite
s, d
o n
ot
dic
tate
th
at
on
e sh
ou
ld
wri
te in
o
ne w
ay
ra
ther
than
an
oth
er.
H
en
ce p
eo
ple
can
hav
e i
nd
ivid
ual
lite
rary
sty
les
bu
t, w
ith
in c
ert
ain
lim
its,
can
w
rite
o
nly
co
rrect
gra
mm
ar
or
inco
rrect
gra
mm
ar.
B
ut
it
wo
uld
p
lain
ly
be
m
ista
ke
n
to
co
nclu
de f
rom
th
is t
hat
lite
rary
sty
le i
s n
ot
go
vern
ed
by
an
y r
ule
s at
all
: it
is
som
eth
ing
th
at
can
be l
earn
ed
,
som
eth
ing
th
at
can
be d
iscu
ssed
, an
d t
he f
act
that
it
can
b
e so
le
arn
ed
an
d d
iscu
ssed
is
ess
en
tial
to o
ur
co
ncep
tio
n o
f it
.
-
54
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
Perh
ap
s th
e b
est
way
to
su
pp
ort
th
is p
oin
t w
ill
be
to
co
nsid
er
a
pe
rsu
asiv
e
pre
se
nta
tio
n
of
the
c
ase
ag
ain
st i
t. S
uch
a p
rese
nta
tio
n i
s o
ffere
d b
y M
ich
ael
Oa
ke
sho
tt in
a
se
rie
s o
f a
rtic
les
in th
e C
am
brid
ge
Jo
urn
al1
. M
uc
h o
f O
ak
esh
ott
’s a
rgu
me
nt
co
inc
ide
s
wit
h th
e v
iew
o
f h
um
an
b
eh
av
iou
r w
hic
h h
as
been
pre
sen
ted
h
ere
, an
d I
wil
l b
eg
in b
y co
nsi
deri
ng
th
is
part
of
wh
at
he s
ay
s b
efo
re v
en
turi
ng
so
me c
riti
cis
ms
of
the r
est
.
Very
mu
ch
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith
th
e v
iew
I h
av
e b
een
ad
vo
cati
ng
is
O
ak
esh
ott
’s re
jecti
on
o
f w
hat
he call
s
the
‘r
ati
on
ali
sti
c’
mis
co
nc
ep
tio
n
of
the
n
atu
re
of
hu
ma
n
inte
llig
en
ce
a
nd
ra
tio
na
lity
. (S
ee
2
1.)
Ac
co
rdin
g to
th
is m
isc
on
ce
pti
on
th
e ra
tio
na
lity
o
f
hu
ma
n b
eh
av
iou
r c
om
es to
it
fr
om
w
ith
ou
t: fr
om
inte
llectu
al
fun
cti
on
s w
hic
h o
pera
te a
cco
rdin
g t
o l
aw
s
of
their
ow
n a
nd
are
, in
pri
ncip
le,
qu
ite i
nd
ep
en
den
t
of
the p
art
icu
lar
form
s o
f acti
vit
y t
o w
hic
h t
hey
may
nev
ert
hele
ss b
e a
pp
lied
.
A
go
od
ex
am
ple
(n
ot
dis
cu
sse
d
by
O
ak
esh
ott
him
self
) o
f th
e so
rt o
f v
iew
to
w
hic
h h
e o
bje
cts
is
Hu
me’s
fa
mo
us
ass
ert
ion
th
at
‘Reaso
n is
, an
d o
ug
ht
on
ly to
b
e th
e sl
av
e o
f th
e p
ass
ion
s, an
d can
n
ev
er
pre
ten
d to
an
y o
ther
off
ice th
an
to
se
rve an
d o
bey
them
’. O
n th
is v
iew
th
e en
ds
of
hu
man
co
nd
uct
are
set
by
th
e n
atu
ral
co
nst
itu
tio
n o
f m
en
’s e
mo
tio
ns;
tho
se e
nd
s b
ein
g g
iven
, th
e o
ffic
e o
f re
aso
n i
s m
ain
ly
to
de
term
ine
th
e
ap
pro
pri
ate
m
ea
ns
of
ac
hie
vin
g
them
. T
he c
hara
cte
rist
ic a
cti
vit
ies
carr
ied
on
in
hu
man
socie
ties
spri
ng
th
en
, p
resu
mab
ly,
fro
m t
his
in
terp
lay
of
reaso
n a
nd
pass
ion
. A
gain
st t
his
pic
ture
Oak
esh
ott
1 Rep
rin
ted
in
Ra
tio
na
lism
in
Po
liti
cs,
Lo
nd
on
, M
eth
uen
, 1
96
2.
55
NA
TU
RE
OF
ME
AN
ING
FU
L B
EH
AV
IOU
R
is q
uit
e c
orr
ect
to p
oin
t o
ut
that:
‘A
co
ok
is
no
t a m
an
wh
o f
irst
has
a v
isio
n o
f a p
ie a
nd
th
en
tri
es
to m
ak
e i
t;
he is
a m
an
sk
ille
d in
co
ok
ery
, an
d b
oth
h
is p
roje
cts
an
d h
is a
ch
iev
em
en
ts sp
rin
g fr
om
th
at
skil
l’.
(21
.)
Ge
ne
rall
y,
bo
th
the
e
nd
s so
ug
ht
an
d
the
m
ea
ns
em
plo
yed
in
hu
man
lif
e,
so f
ar
fro
m g
en
era
tin
g f
orm
s
of
socia
l acti
vit
y,
dep
en
d f
or
their
very
bein
g o
n t
ho
se
form
s. A
reli
gio
us
my
stic
, fo
r in
stan
ce,
wh
o s
ay
s th
at
his
aim
is
un
ion
wit
h G
od
, can
be u
nd
ers
too
d o
nly
by
som
eo
ne w
ho
is
acq
uain
ted
wit
h t
he r
eli
gio
us
trad
itio
n
in t
he c
on
tex
t o
f w
hic
h t
his
en
d i
s so
ug
ht;
a s
cie
nti
st
wh
o sa
ys
tha
t h
is a
im is
to
sp
lit
the
a
tom
c
an
b
e
un
de
rsto
od
o
nly
b
y so
me
on
e w
ho
is
fa
mil
iar
wit
h
mo
dern
ph
ysi
cs.
Th
is le
ad
s O
ak
esh
ott
to
sa
y,
ag
ain
q
uit
e co
rrectl
y,
that
a f
orm
of
hu
man
acti
vit
y c
an
nev
er
be s
um
med
up
in a
set
of
ex
pli
cit
pre
cep
ts.
Th
e a
cti
vit
y ‘
go
es
bey
on
d’
the p
recep
ts.
Fo
r in
stan
ce,
the p
recep
ts h
av
e to
b
e
ap
pli
ed
in
p
racti
ce an
d,
alt
ho
ug
h w
e m
ay
fo
rmu
late
an
oth
er,
hig
her-
ord
er,
set
of
pre
cep
ts p
resc
rib
ing
ho
w
the f
irst
set
is t
o b
e a
pp
lied
, w
e c
an
no
t g
o f
urt
her
alo
ng
this
ro
ad
w
ith
ou
t fi
nd
ing
o
urs
elv
es
on
th
e sl
ipp
ery
slo
pe p
oin
ted
ou
t b
y L
ewis
Carr
oll
in
his
pap
er,
ju
stly
cele
bra
ted
am
on
gst
lo
gic
ian
s, W
ha
t th
e T
ort
ois
e S
aid
to
Ach
ille
s (5
).
Ac
hil
les
an
d
the
T
ort
ois
e
are
d
isc
ussin
g
thre
e
pro
po
siti
on
s, A
, B
, an
d Z
, w
hic
h a
re s
o r
ela
ted
th
at
Z
foll
ow
s lo
gic
all
y fr
om
A an
d B
. T
he T
ort
ois
e ask
s
Ach
ille
s to
tre
at
him
as
if h
e a
ccep
ted
A a
nd
B a
s tr
ue
bu
t d
id n
ot
yet
accep
t th
e tr
uth
o
f th
e h
yp
oth
eti
cal
pro
po
siti
on
(C
) ‘I
f A
an
d B
be t
rue,
Z m
ust
be t
rue’,
an
d
to
forc
e
him
, lo
gic
all
y,
to
ac
ce
pt
Z
as
tru
e.
Ach
ille
s b
eg
ins
by
ask
ing
th
e T
ort
ois
e to
accep
t C
,
-
56
TH
E I
DE
A O
F A
SO
CIA
L S
CIE
NC
E
wh
ich
th
e T
ort
ois
e d
oes;
Ach
ille
s th
en
w
rite
s in
h
is
no
teb
oo
k:
“A
B C (
If A
an
d B
are
tru
e,
Z m
ust
be t
rue)
Z.”
He n
ow
say
s to
th
e T
ort
ois
e:
‘If
yo
u a
ccep
t A
an
d B
an
d C
, y
ou
m
ust
accep
t Z
’. W
hen
th
e T
ort
ois
e ask
s
wh
y h
e m
ust
, A
ch
ille
s re
pli
es:
‘B
ec
au
se it
fo
llo
ws
log
ica
lly f
rom
th
em
. If
A a
nd
B a
nd
C a
re t
rue,
Z m
ust
be tr
ue (D
). Y
ou
d
on
’t d
isp
ute
th
at,
I
imag
ine?’
Th
e
To
rto
ise ag
rees
to accep
t D
if
Ach
ille
s w
ill
wri
te it
do
wn
. T
he fo
llo
win
g d
ialo
gu
e th
en
en
sues.
Ach
ille
s
say
s:
‘N
ow
th
at
yo
u a
ccep
t A
an
d B
an
d C
an
d D
, o
f co
urs
ey
ou
accep
t Z
.’‘D
o I?
’ sa
id th
e T
ort
ois
e in
no
cen
tly.
‘Let’
s m
ak
eth
at
qu
ite c
lear.
I a
ccep
t A
an
d B
an
d C
an
d D
. S
up
po
seI
stil
l re
fuse
to
accep
t Z
?’
‘Th
en
Lo
gic
wo
uld
tak
e y
ou
by
th
e t
hro
at,
an
d f
orc
e
yo
u to
d
o it
!’ A
ch
ille
s tr
ium
ph
an
tly
re
pli
ed
. ‘L
og
icw
ou
ld te
ll y
ou
“Y
ou
can
’t h
elp
y
ou
rself
. N
ow
th
at
yo
u’v
e a
ccep
ted
A a
nd
B a
nd
C a
nd
D,
yo
u m
ust
accep
tZ
”.
So
yo
u’v
e n
o c
ho
ice,
yo
u s
ee.’
‘Wh
ate
ver
Lo
gic
is
go
od
en
ou
gh
to
tell
me i
s w
ort
hw
riti
ng
d
ow
n,’
sa
id th
e T
ort
ois
e.
‘So
en
ter
it in
y
ou
rb
oo
k,
ple
ase
. W
e w
ill
call
it
(E)
If A
an
d B
an