Kantotelian reflections on the supremacy of homo sapiens

Grice and Kantotle on the supremacy of 'Man'.

All of Aristotle's examples are

"Man, wise"

"Man, mortal"

"Man, white"

"Socrates, man"

----- One would think Aristotle was obsessed with _man_.

Ditto, Grice, but he would not say it.

Aristotle, Kant, Kantotle, Ariskant, Grice, etc. believe that man is 'special'. This is Grice, from "Reply to Richards". I was SO disappointed when I read it, till I finally read it in ways that don't disappoint me.

He writes:

This may serve as a Griciean corollary and call for attention to Green/Bar-On in their Sellarsian paper in Rubinstein.

Grice writes:

Grice notes that it would be nice if his account should

"allow for the possibility

that non-linguistic and indeed

non-conventional 'utterances',

perhaps even manifesting some degree

of structure, might be

WITHIN THE POWER OF CREATURES

who lack any linguistic or otherwise

conventional apparatus for communication,"

THINK: Pirot.

----

"but who [which?] are NOT

thereby deprived of the capacity to *MEAN*

this or that by things they do."

-----

Cats usually bring mess to homes, no?

--- (Just teasing).

Grice goes on:

"To provide for THIS POSSIBILITY,

it is plainly necessary -- NECESSARY -- emphasis Grice's]

that the key ingredient in any representation

of meaning, namely _intending_, should be a

_STATE_ the capacity for which does NOT

require the possession of a language."

Again, think Pirot.

Grice notes:

"Now, some might be unwilling to allow

the possibility of such pre-linguistic

intending."

------

"Against them, I THINK I ****WOULD***** have

good prospects of winning the day;"

---- Grice was obsessed with this. ARGUMENT is WAR, in Lakoff's parlance.

"but, unfortunately"

--- matter of _fact_.

"a victory on this front would NOT BE ENOUGH."

Cause of despair, yet again: Schiffer.

Grice:

"For, in a succession of increasingly

elaborated moves designed to thwart

a sequence of Schifferian counterexamples,"

---- which ALL originated from Strawson (1963), "Intention and convention" (Philosophical Review, 1964, cited by Grice, 1967)

"I have been led to restrict the intentions

which are to constitute

utterer's meaning

to *M-intentions* [emphasis Grice's];"

"and whatever might be the
case in general with regard to
intending, M-intending is PLAINLY
too sophisticated a state to be
found in a language-destitute
creature"

such as a chaffinch.

--- But then, Grice's myth -- was it Griceian, or then just Grecian?

---

-------

Of course Grice has a way out for this. In "Reply to Richards", from which those quotes originate, he is considering the alleged 'raison-d'etre' of his program or 'campaign':

"So the unavoidable rearguard actions seem to have undermined the raison-d'etre of the campaign"

Unless we attack again -- tomorrow.