for The Grice Club
Here is a quote from JLS on Grice before the war:
<p/>
<blockquote>
Grice was just a 'post-verificationist'; his essays at the
time attempt to provide 'logical' constructions (for
notions like "I" or personal identity) in part in terms of
experiential content,
while not being necessarily samples of reductionist
analysis.
</blockquote>
<p/>
That sounds to me more like the influence of Russell, or at
least of his Logical Atomism (I don't know which bits came
from Witters) supplemented by a more definite conception of
what the atomic propositions are about.
So if one were to relate it to verificationism it would
surely be pre-verificationist? (verificationism postdates the
Tractatus, and Wittgenstein never acknowledge himself as its
source).
This talk of "Logical Constructions" is Russell-speak,
Witters was so keen to insist on the truth functional aspect
of logic that he didn't get into abstract ontology (which is
what Russell's logical constructions have to be, once the
logical fictions get past incomplete symbols and into the
domain of quantification).
<p/>
<blockquote>
(In his "Valedictory Essay" he distinguishes, almost
pedantically, between an analysis
being 'reductive' -- but not eliminationist, and
'reductionist' -- all the way).
</blockquote>
<p/>
Can you fill me in on this "Valedictory Essay", when written,
for whom, where published.
<p/>
RBJ
Posts
Sure: it's good ol' "Retrospective Epilogue" in WoW! It's my nod to Chapman's bio _Grice_, 2006. This got reviewed: "about time linguists read more than "Logic and Conversation"". Since I'm not one that doesn't touch me, but about time people start considering editorial variants to Grice's unpublications, since poor S. R. took the trouble to unbury and transcribe them for us.
ReplyDeleteShe says that the "Retrospective Epilogue" in WoW where all that tirade occupying a whole page on reductive-but-not-reductionist is to be found, he thought of titling "Valedictory Essay". Since it has a Ciceronian ring to it, I use it.
----- I'll elaborate on your other point. I may need a catalogue raisonne. I am thinking of:
Grice's paper on 'negation'. Cited by Chapman. Grice's earlist.
Grice's paper on 'verification'. I'll try to quote from Chapman's editorials.
It seems Grice had read Berlin, in _Mind_ (Isaiah Berlin) on "Phenomenalis" (I happen to have his paperback, Concepts and Categories, ed. Hardy, somewhere so can check later). I never liked Berlin, much.
Grice is not foe to talk of 'verification' by experience and phenomenalist accounts. So indeed, it may be pre-verificationist. His talk of 'construction' is indeed Russellian, but more alla Broad, who he discusses. It was the particular type of construction that we can get out of analysis of simpler propositions, so the atomism thing sounds just fine.
I guess I was using 'post-verificationist' in that it presupposes that the verificationist stand is accepted: it all boils down to sense-data, and so what we have to do now is propose _specific_ analysis.
Chapman makes a point that, while a verificationist, etc, he was seldom a physicalist: at least when it came to the _first person_ naturally enough. He saw his self as naturally having privileged access on areas -- and it may be this that I identified with post-verificationist, too. But I'll revise.
--- Thanks for the query and the post.
JLS