Peacocke on entitlement, Grice on deeming

From the website for Peacocke:

"The Realm of Reason (Oxford, 2003) develops a theory of the relations between entitlement, truth, and the a priori, and proposes a generalized rationalism."

cfr. Grice on deeming.

Grice and Peacocke are RATIONALISTS. If we reach the stage where you can say, "Mr. Smith is rational", then everything that Smith deems, or is entitled to say (in Peacocke's parlance) is simpliciter.

Grice was perhaps more qualificatory.

The Master had a dog. No dogs allowed in College. Governing Body meets. Dog deemed to be a cat.

As Kramer taught me: this is a common legal practice. And it need NOT involve 'rationality'. So, there may be entitlements (and deemings) which are, while 'reasonable' not yet 'rational'.

Kramer may say that 'entitle' (or 'deem') is analogic or gradual (or "round" as I prefer, rather than 'flat'):

"Smith is MORE OR LESS entitled to..."

But I cannot see how a dog can be "more or less deemed to" be a cat. So SOME deemings, and the best ones, seem to be digital.

Of course in this our age of Multiculturalism, nothing can be entitled or deemed simpliciter and everything is tumbling down before our very eyes: rationality, and reason, and her realm. We've metaphorically have gone to the dogs. Or not.