I would follow Jones here.
As he notes, 'platonic' is best used to describe something related to Plato. "Platonist", a bit of a moutful (given the shorter 'platonic') should rather be restricted, as Jones suggests, to "a follower of Plato".
---- cfr. Plotinus's Neo-Platonism. Platonist, but not platonic.
---
Now, the issue regarding "Grice" (an Oxford philosopher -- judged by some to be a 'minor figure' in the philosophical firmament -- not me!).
Surely it would have been pedantic of Grice to use "Gricean". I don't think he ever used that word. But surely by the time he died (1988) he must have been aware that a few linguists (mainly) were using the adjective to terrorist extremes ("Gricean maxims", the most hateful collocation).
---
So I propose NOT to use "Gricean" -- if you are Grice, or to refer to Grice's views. We have "Grice" for that.
In Buenos Ayres, Borges objected to the use of "borgeano", which is the adjective used in Buenos Aires, to describe "related to Borges". "What happened to my '-es'?", he would complain. "Borgesian" seems a better adjective. He blamed the French who were apparently using 'borgeen'.
So, I would restrict "Gricean" to a 'follower of Grice'. I was so bored by this, especially after Attalardo (who I love) asked about the distinction between post-Gricean and neo-Gricean elsewhere, that I coined 'paleo-Gricean' (or palaeo-Gricean, if you must).
I did not venture to say that Grice was a palaeo-Gricean. No. ARISTOTLE was a palaeo-Gricean.
On the whole, I would think that neo-Griceans are right, and post-Griceans are wrong.
---- The implicature of 'post-' is a bad one. As when we say, "post-Christian". I.e. after the death of Jesus.
Note that Kant's followers in the early twentieth-century (Dilthey, etc.) were called NEO-Kantians, never post-Kantians.
Surely, the point -- marketing point, if you must -- of 'post-Griceanism' is to try to trade on this slight undermisestimation by Grice on this and that.
In general, in Oxford (which is the place that counts), I haven't heard "post-Gricean" much. But then I haven't heard "Gricean" much. They are so old fashioned there, that if you hear "Millian" you are lucky.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOr, relatedly, as I read somewhere, there appears to be a difference between Platonism with big, upper case P , and platonism, lower case p. It would probably take a Hillary Putnam to point out the subtle differences, however.
ReplyDeleteReally most mathematicians (and their little buddies, logicians) tend to be at least little p platonists, and ergo metaphysical realists. Numbers, equations, relations, sets, logical forms, etc all float out in Mind: these entities exist (you and the GC regs are probably aware of this...) independently of human brains. They are, instead, part of Mind. Didn't Frege think that?
The Big P Platonism was the mystical idealist sort, the Forms, the denial of nature, etc. as well as the political views of the Republic which followed from the metaphysics. The neo-platonists were Big P. As are many religious people.
Both are retrograde views, not to say anti-humanist, even oppressive at times. I contend, however, that small p platonism is the prevailing metaphysical doctrine of both mathematics and most in the philosophy business, and quite a few scientists.
Yes. I never saw three. I mean, I saw three oranges, three horses, three women, even. But never did I see three.
ReplyDeleteA griceista (not me) may see that's lack of vision -- or insight, I forget.
You haven't seen an Integer Tree? or rather, the Integral Tree, Riemanni summicus. Yeah.
ReplyDeleteIm no classicist but you may recall that Socrates generally starts his metaphysical discussions, even the supposed immortality of the soul, by referring to a geometric figure or problem. Isn't that the case in the Meno? (actually got this from one of the Chomster's lectures, as in Gnome) So he seems to suggest that knowledge, whatever it is, at least starts with observation. It's not until the student makes a correct inference from the geometry that he says, you're connecting with your immortal soul, Jr.
Ancients didn't know anything about brains, neurology or even vision (except that its important), but did realize the importance of observables--you probably wouldn't hire blind men to build your house, or drive trains.
I don't know. One of my mentors, J. L. Borges, was blind, and oddly, proud of it. He collected info on other notable blind men, starting with Homer. He would recite Milton's, "On his own blindness" from memory. Groussac, who predated him as head of the local library, was also blind.
ReplyDeleteBorges's ancestor, Borges was proud to say, filled the pages of an English medical journal.
Borges's blindness was inherited. Not from his mother. From his English paternal line.
His grandmother was from Hanley in Staffordshire. Borges became blind in 1955, which triggered him to study Anglo-Saxon. He stopped writing short stories and concentrated on sonnets, since he would memorise the lines as he composed them.
I'm less sure if his sex life improved. But reports say that blind people are very sensitive, sexually. Must be some sort of compensation.
----
Borges was often asked, "Why is it, master, to live in a world of blackness?". He would answer that actually, he saw all YELLOW. That a blindman sees black is a myth. He disliked yellow, which didn't help.
His loss of vision was gradual. For a time, he would only buy yellow ties, because at least he could see them.
You knew JL Borges, the famed Argentina writer?? Wow. Impressive--I enjoy his "Labyrinths". I thought you were a youngster JLster.
ReplyDeleteEither way, some types of knowledge definitely begin with vision, observation, sensation--I ...believe (tentatively) geometry begins thusly. Thats not to thereby bless "associationism" (JL Mill if not empiricism is generally anathema for Philo-biz). Kant hisself insists that the understanding relies on sensibility (in brief...not that he actually solves the problem). Even the synthetic a priori at least suggests a...human element to...mathematical knowledge, I believe. Kant, kognitivized I can respect a bit (tho' ...the trad types don't care for that either). Homie Tony Gramsci thought in those terms, y'all
Borges is ETERNAL!
ReplyDeleteBorges, Borges said, is the only writer Argentina produced!
ReplyDeleteI know, as most the local population, ALL about Borges!
ReplyDeleteAnother of my mentors was Shakespeare.
ReplyDeletePerhaps I overuse 'mentor'.
ReplyDeleteI agree Borges is a great--and rather superior to the usual academic logic choppers, or hegel-marxo-spewers, or Hallmark hacks for that matter. He had some education--was a medical student for a time, then languages... I believe. His spanish is quite ornate--I have a few stories of his in castillian. Difficult to translate, compared to...la entrevista--there is a Buenos Aires--or is it Argentinian-- jargon or slang as well I don't always get.
ReplyDeleteHe entertains philosophical ideas at times does he not.--such as the famed library of the world example (and the "garden of forking paths" itself from Borges). He read the greeks at least. And ponders logical and mathematical curiosities ... His writing verges on sci-fi at times, tho' with a strange sadness.
Periodicos, that is. Newspapers. Or Jewspapers as Pound called 'em .Oops!
ReplyDeleteThe Book of Sand an odd Borges story. With philosophastical import.
I think Borges was a bit of a ...skeptic actually.
OK -- good you provide feedback. I'll write more about him in separate blog post.
ReplyDelete