Grice, Anglo philosophy, and 'mean'
---- by JLS
------- for the GC
---- HAVING JUST POSTED ON ALL that verbal pyrotechnic that the Latin language allows ('implicatum', 'implicans', 'implicanda', 'implicatio', etc.) one wonders. I don't!
But allow me a few points:
(1) Had it not been by the fact (it is a fact) that English philosophy is what it is, Grice would not have been what he has been. I.e. all the distinctions he tried to make: 'natural, non-natural meaning', 'implicature', etc. make little sense in languages with a stronger 'continental' tradition.
(2) Grice's point is partly sophistic or scholastic -- he does quote "How many angels...?". He was not interested in 'conversation' (let alone in 'implicature') per se, but only as manoeuvres to deal with some trends in the philosophy of his day (the polemic 'meaning' versus 'use', for example).
(3) His was an 'applied' philosophy of language. One reads linguists' reading of Grice and you might think that, hey, this philosopher (if philosopher you think he was -- the OED does not: 'British linguist' he gets defined as) was onto language. But he was not. He was, properly, onto philosophy. His philosophy of language is schematic and meant to provide some background to his philosophical distinctions of a more abstract, theoretical nature (in 'ontology', and properly, 'theory of perception').
(4) Etc.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
How much abstract than a word to you wish to be? Is there a limbo of non-reference that exceeds even the expression/implicatur thereto?
ReplyDelete.9551485148
A very good and pious Jew, Samuel Goldberg, man dies and immediately
goes to heaven. The angel at the gate greets him and tells him that
he can't admit him to heaven.
When Mr. Goldberg asks why, the angel replies, "Well, this is a
little embarrassing. You see, as I look at your record, for all
intents and purposes, you have no sins. All I can see looking at
page after page is mitzvah after mitzvah. You have been an
exceptional person your whole life, you married a decent woman, your
children turned out to be respected members of the community, you've
always paid your debts on time... nothing but mitzvahs.
Now, other than God, only the angels have no sins. I obviously
can't send you to hell, but I can't admit you to heaven because
you're a human being and human beings commit sins."
The angel thought for a moment and then said, I'll tell you what I'm
going to do. I'm going to send you back to Earth for 24 hours.
During that time all you have to do is commit one sin. It doesn't
have to anything drastic, just something that will go on your record
as a sin."
The next thing he knows, Mr. Goldberg is standing on the street in
front of his home. Approaching him on the street, he notices Mrs.
Ludinsky, a 79 year old widow carrying two large bags of groceries
with great difficulty. True to his nature, Mr. Goldberg offers to
help her carry the groceries home. Then, remembering that he must
commit a sin in order to be admitted to heaven, he grabs Mrs.
Ludinsky, the groceries go flying in every direction, and drags her
up the stairs to his bedroom. Once inside he proceeds to commit
every kind of sexual debauchery he can think of.
Several hours later, exhausted, he begins to put his clothes back
on.
Sitting up in bed, Mrs. Ludinsky says, "Oy, Mr. Goldberg, you have
no idea what a mitzvah you've just done!"
Well, yes. The idea of an "angel" is controversial. I guess my favourite angelic quote is Pope Gregory: "They would be angels, were they not angles". "Angel" is totally literal in Greek: it means plain "messenger". The Christians, of course, confused it all, when they represented your little "putti" of Italian pictorial tradition as the Cupidus of the angelic conversation. Oddly D. Jarman has a film thus called, apparently in Latin. Ah well.
ReplyDeleteGrice mentions, "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" as the epitome of an otiose (philosophical) query. Of course, there are serious issues involved. If, for St. Augustine, an angel is an "immaterial" thing, the answer could range from zero (to use the title of A. K.´s book) to the infinite.
Grice refers to that question in his "Prejudices and Predilections", which may well be worth a re-read. He is considering objections to "ordinary language philosophy" and how little it dealt with real-life problems (so-called). Etc.