What A Gricean Rational Reconstruction Is Not

by J. L. Speranza
for the Grice Circle.

---- IF THERE IS A GENIUS of Gricean sympathies in Cambridge, Massachusets, that's R. C. Stalnaker!

Yet, his Griceianism is often misinterpreted. Most recently by the wonderboy of contextualism: J. Stanley.

In revising how uncentral to Grice's project is the pretty Carnapian idea of "rational reconstruction" -- cited by Jones in "Life of Carnap", his site -- I come across TWO instances of "Gricean rational reconstruction" in Stanley's exegesis of Stalnaker's "Assertion":


[PDF] 1 “Assertion” and Intentionality Forthcoming in Philosophical ... - J Stanley - Stalnaker (as for Carnap before him), being informative must always be ..... Grice. An utterance is made, which flouts general conversational norms. ..... in “Assertion” as a description akin to a Gricean rational reconstruction. ...
www.rci.rutgers.edu/~jasoncs/stalnakerphilstudies.pdf -

----

If I misunderstood Stanley alright, he Kant say what Grice means!

The point is that Grice WAS into rational reconstruction, but would not call it so! Perhaps he would have thought the phrase too grandiose.

Strictly, 'rational reconstruction' is a VERY serious thing for Carnap. Carnap has to provide a justifiation, if he Kant, as to why a given scientific hypothesis needs rational reconstruction. The phrase 'rational reconstruction' (or rather, "Rational Rekonstruktion") occurs in the Aufbau. Carnap's problem was with the realist vs. sceptical languages -- rational reconstruction is what we need, because the realist attitude can only be decided 'pragmatically', rather than theoretical out of an examiantion of a mere 'rational reconstruction'. (I am speaking vaguely, etc.).

The way Stanley uses "Gricean rational reconstruction" is not made explicit, but I heard the criticism before, if criticism it is. Stanely is suggesting that Stalnaker supersedes Grice in NOT attempting a mere "Gricean rational reconstruction" which would be of no avail for the matter of course. Echoes of lack of pscyhological 'reality', etc. Consider the steps in the recovery of what is meant. Do utterers and addressess work out what is meant like that? What sort of thing is a Gricean 'rational reconstruction' (as Stanley, never Grice, uses the expression)? Etc.