The Full Austinian Code -- as Despised by Grice

JONES in post to blog:

"Austin (S&S [Sense and sensibilia, that is], DTWW [How to do things with words, or as I prefer, to use the title of his Oxford lectures on this, "Words and deeds"], A plea for excuses). Consider where the crucial dogmas are (minimal or not) which could not be swallowed by the other side. Then see how may of these were in fact moderated by Carnap and Grice. This gives us a couple of hopefully converging lines of development, which we could extrapolate to a common point in the City."

Hear, hear.

I will try to elaborate on this. There are TWO points to consider vis a vis Grice and Austin:

i. the methodological
ii. the substantive.

I am more and more inclined to see Grice as a metaphilosopher, i.e. as concerned with philosophical method. Hence the numbering of the points as i, and ii.

So, vis a vis the 'method', why is Grice reluctant to adopt the full Austinian code, as he calls it? One wonders. Is he that he thinks that a pure and blind following of 'usage' leads you to a blind alley. No wonder. All blind followings SHOULD lead to a blind alley. Hence the name.

So, Grice wants to say that 'he doesn't care a hoot' what the dictionary -- or 'ordinary use' leads him. He as independence of a criterion!

----

However, this radical view is usually minimised by Grice and his exegetical authors in pointing that it's mere 'linguistic botanising' that is at play here. But surely there is something more basic, a more basic antipathy of Grice the philosopher in endorsing a philosophical method that can only misguide you in the end.

For Grice, a critical examination of the TRUTH value of 'ta legomena' (what is said, the received opinion) is part and parcel of the role of the philosopher, be he 'ordinary language' or not!