Fight the Good Fight

--- by J. L. Speranza
----- for the Grice Club.

On p. 361 of his Studies in the Way of Words, Grice wants to consider dictiveness without formality and where it leads us. So this is his case IIIb,

"He is just an evangelist"

Hardly a fighting word. But consider Grice´s gloss: it has not nothing to do with the 'gospel' or the 'good news' (eu-aggelion). But rather as a conversational move to put forward the U's idea that

"He is a

a. sanctimonious
b. hypocritical
c. racist
d. reactionary

money grubber."

Grice´s point is that, along with "High Ho" (meaning thereby, "Well, that's the way the world goes") Grice seems to display some ignorance of what 'evangelist' may mean: i.e. the ignorance in those who USE it. For surely the 'just' is just if we are abbreviating: 'sanctimonious, hypocritical, racist, reactionary money-grubber' by such a good term of newish Greek pedigree.

Grice notes:

"It might be claimed", here and there, "that what U meant
was in fact that his words said."

--- THIS IS EXACTLY DAVIDSON's point about metaphor that that most unGricean of scholars, G. N. Lakoff, -- married to one of the most Griceian females of all time, Robin Talmach -- found so irritating. The point of a metaphor is to SAY what you MEAN! If I say that the moon is made of cheese, then, while I AM being metaphorical at the level of what I implicate, what I do say, and what I should be taken at face value for, is my expression of the belief that the moon is made of cheese.

Grice goes on:

"In which case,", i.e. if that gloss for "evangelist" holds, "his words would be dictive but their dictive content woud be NONFORMAL,"

--- or "fighting," even!

and less interestingly, "not part of the conventional meaning of the words
used."

I.e. a clear case (or 'cases' -- to include the perhaps more charming "High Ho") of 'dictiveness without formality'.

Now compare with the entry for Fighting Words in the wiki:

"You are a God-damned racketeer a damned fascist!"

He said.

And he was arrested.

The court upheld the arrest and wrote in its decision that

"There are certain well-defined and

narrowly limited classes of speech, the

prevention and punishment of which have

never been thought to raise any

constitutional problem. These include

the lewd and obscene, the profane,

the libelous, and the insulting

or "fighting words""

-- sic for some reason in scare quotes!

"those which

by their very utterance inflict injury

or tend to incite an immediate breach of the

peace. It has been well observed that such utterances

are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and

are of such slight social value as a step to

truth that any benefit that may be derived from them

is clearly outweighed by the social interest

in order and morality."

– Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 1942

Mmm. Let´s consider the cooperative principle again:

"You are a God-damned racketeer a damned fascist."

I´m not sure why racketeer should promote a fight. I´m more sure about "God-damned", but I´m sure A. G. N. Flew would not be provoked into a fight by such a spurious remark. Indeed, my favourite misheard lyric is:

"Peace on earth, and mercy mild

god-damned sinners reconciled."

(Mendelsohn).

"Fascist" has of course a literal meaning, and some sort of Roman pedigree. It is interesting that the subject who DAMNS the fascist, while it is expressed as being God in the case of the racketeer is left unsaid, or just implicated, by context.¨

---

I wonder if this allows for some decompositional analysis. How do we turn that into a milder expression:

"You are a racketeer and a fascist".

seems less of a bunch of fighting words.

Of course, Mussolini would not be insulted by being called a fascist, (but that´s possibly a sign that it IS a fighting word) -- but I can´t think (or Kant think) that the problem here is with the big big D. ("Hardly ever?", as the G&S song goes).

Etc.