by JLS
for the GC.
THIS IS A COMMENTARY ON L. K. Helm´s post on French "men of letters", whom he admires!
Yes -- but there is ONE thing Parisian men of letters don´t have: Grice and analytic philosophy!
It is IMPOSSIBLE to practice analytical philosophy in France! They are SO nationalistic! That they first have to TRANSLATE J. L. Austin´s, How to do things with words, rather than discuss it in the original!
Recall that Grice´s movement in philosophy was exactly POST-WAR. The seeds of the analytic movement (in Oxford) were planted in the 1930s, immediately before the war. After the war, it was all a self-analytic, self-reflective attitude towards language. The French "men of letters" will ONLY that A FEW generations after! With Structuralism! And NEVER via Philosophy! Structuralism is a movement in anthropology, and perhaps, linguistics. There is no such thing as "structuralist philosophy". Is there?
A real pity is Merleau Ponty, because he does say things like Grice does in "Causal Theory of Perception" -- but French philosophy was TOO literary for analytic tastes.
Even S. N. Hampshire, a member of Grice´s and Austin´s group, was criticised with his "Thought and Action" as being TOO continental (read: French) in scope.
Another big disappointment was when the wife of Grice´s colleague G. J. Warnock, Mary Warnock, instead of dedicating her efforts to good meta-ethical theory alla her husband, wrote, instead a book about Sartre! Is that fair!?!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I didn't say I admired the "men of letters" (I'd have to think a bit more to decide whether there are any of them I admire.) I said I admire the French for admiring men of letters. My primary contrast here is with my own country which would rather admire rock stars. Duff Gordon must have had similar thoughts. Who did the British admire in lieu of Rock Stars?
ReplyDelete