"Irreverent Rationalism"

--- By JLS

------------ PERHAPS the best description of Grice´s philosophy is in his first footnote in his "Prejudices and Predilections, which becomes the life and opinions of Paul Grice," by Paul Grice. It goes to define Grice´s self as that of an


irreverent
conservative
dissenting
rationalism



So let´s revise. But first let´s try to memorise, of sorts,


irreverent


conservative


dissenting


rationalism.



This is like "green big fresh tasty apple". What order for adjectives? The scope is easy. Follow the yellow brick road. So it´s in reverse:


rationalism

dissenting:

READ:

dissenting rationalism.




ADD:


conservative


Read:


conservative, dissenting rationalism




FIND That that is "stodgy"? Add "irreverent"


Read:


irreverent,
conservative,
dissenting
rationalism.

The Why of the Why.

Should be obvious enough. But here it goes:

"Rationalism". It´s dissenting because in British philosophy you HAVE to be an empiricist. Think of the Fate of Bradley. The laughing stock of Oxford! And he wasn´t even a rationalist! England never HAD rationalists, till Grice! (I mean, they populated CANTAB. but that´s a whole ´nother world: Cudworth as ally to Descartes in his tirade for innatism, versus Locke´s tabula rasa.

Mind that this IS NOT "Cartesian" Grice. It´s more, much much much more along KANTIAN rationalism only. Aristotle at most, when he defines man as a rational animal, etc.


DISSENTING. This is Grice´s non-conformism coming from his father, and from his tutor at Oxford, Hardie. Hardie taught Grice to ARGUE. He learned from him "what you cannot teach yourself", I think he has it. They would spend hours (strictly, the tutorial hour -- then they would go play golf) arguing. Hardie was a good one at that. Grice recalls how a fellow undergrad was complaining because after a 5 minute silence, Hardie came up with,

"And what did you mean by, "of"?"


--- But surely this is hot topic: Cfr. The love of God. "of"? The fear of the enemies. "of"? Certainly a misuse of "of" can lead to a fallacy (or two). These were the days of the Lit. Hum, not the PPE types that thrived in Oxon years later.

CONSERVATIVE. Well, this is vernacular and misleading. By "classic" he means "modern". This WILL irritate people who enrol, as I sort of did, but without choice, in a course in logic. The Classic is Whitehead/Russell, 1913 (second edition) PM, Principia Mathematica. That is an acronym I could use, on Thursdays. So Grice is merely being orthodox by sticking to the "conservative" views of the "classics". It doesn´t seem to be anything more serious than that. The Later Grice did wax rhetorical and wanted to fascinate audiences with unbridled defenses of objective value and rationes essendi, but if we trace a long-standing line of conservativism is the idea that "linguistic analysis" of the "botanising type" cannot "refute" the logical form for which "grammar" is "a pretty good guide".

IRREVERENT. This is important in Bergsonian terms. Grice believed in the power of laughter. This was NOT a character trait. This WAS in the genes. It´s a "talent that Nature gave me", he says "Prejudices and Predilections". He laughed. He didn´t want to say he laughed AT philosophy. He laughed WITH philosophy. His was a convivial approach. "Philosophy has to be fun". He chose this as his closing lecture as prof. of Seattle, back in 1982. It´s a bit like Bud Flanagan, "It´s greatest of ALL epitaphs, when they say you did it, Just for laughs".