"No: Anscombe, Murdoch, Dummett"

Chapman, who likes her bios to be unauthorised, quotes this from a cigarette packet where Grice wrote:

no: Anscombe, Murdoch, Dummett

--- he was making notes on who were NOT members of the playgroup. Anscombe and Murdoch are understandable. They were ladies. Dummett was --- a bore?

---

Grice goes back to Anscombe in his British Philosophical lecture for 1971:

"It could be most unnatural to speak of someone who
intends to do A as thinking, truly, or falsely, or
rightly, or mistakenly, that he will do A; that is,
we cannot employ here the ordinary terminology for
appraising beliefs (cf. Aristotle on the difference
between proaiosis and doxa). This point may be (and
I think has been *by Professor Anscombe) put vividly
by saying that if a man

[I wonder if Anscombe would have used "man". JLS]

fails to fulfil an intention, we do not criticise his
state of mind for failing to conform to the facts,
we criticise the facts for failing to conform to his
state of mind." (p.8).

This of course relates to joint work Grice undertook with his student DF
Pears, of Christ Church. The Anscombe reference being, I believe, to her
example of

The "shopping list" illustration

(in "Intention") which is, incidentally, discussed in some detail in The
Guardian obituary. Incidentally, it is said, as I recall that the concept of
a "direction of fit" was an Anscombian collocation. I always thought it was
a locution created by JL Austin (At least it was JR Searle who popularised
the expression as applied to speech acts having mainly two directions of fit
(down to earth: assertions) and (up to the sky: commands). Maybe Austin took
the distinction from Anscombe?). Etc. S. R. Bayne knows all about this, and he knows it.