Central Meaning and the Conception of Value (WoW: "two-valued interpretation", 22)

It would be good to be reminded of Grice on 'two-valued interpretation' (WoW:22). He is of course, concerned with the seven formal devices

not
and
or
if
all
some
the

"when these are given a standard two-valued interpretation".

Imagine if we were Lukasiewicz and denied that! No hope for implicature!

But in any case, it is interesting to dwell on 'value' as used there.

We say

'true' is a truth-value

'false' is the other value.

Hence, 'two-valued interpretation'.

But in "Aspects of Reason", he uses 'satisfactory' in connection with 'value'.

He wants to say that we have

alethic value -- i.e. truth.

and

non-alethic (practical) value -- Sometimes Grice uses 'goodness' here -- apres Hardie on Aristotle,

'agathon'.

but we need not go THERE.

---

If we use 'axiological' for 'value' (value-neutral) we have

alethic axiological -- 'true', 'false'.

practical axiological.



----

It is best to stick with Greek roots, which Grice not always does. He likes 'judicative' and 'volitive', for example.

Why not 'doxastic' and 'boulomaic'?

----

In this respect,

the alethic is the realm of the 'doxastic' -- Grice is well aware of this, since his early 1948 "Meaning" ('indicative type of utterance', associated with _belief_; 'imperative type of utterance', associated with _desire_).

Grice uses "*" (but sometimes the clumsier "Op") to symbolise operator.

These are not really what linguists mean by 'mode' but close enough.

The philosopher does not need to get concerned too obsessively with those, since he is into _general_ things (vide Grandy/Warner in Stanford -- there's no need to provide a full systematics of mood or mode in English!).

----

All we need is to grasp the idea of

*

which is an operator then (we operate with them) and it's a generic operator, ranging over

the assertive operator (/-) and the imperative (boulomaic) operator, !-.

----

The important connection is with the psi-constants. Willing that p, and believing that p.

Grice speaks of 'accepting' (and 'satisfactory') as phrases that are generic enough to cover both.

You accept that if smoke, smoked salmon.
But you also accept, "close the door!".

Grice was a philosopher, and as such was interested, ultimately in KANT. How can you be a philosopher and not be interested in Kant? So, where he (Grice) is going is towards a regimentation of the _faculty_ of reason in its two main (and most likely only) realms: the alethic ('pure' in Kant's odd terminology) and the boulomaic ('practical').

The boulomaic -- and the doxastic -- apply primarily to utterer himself and to addresee. There's not such thing as a self-imperative. Imperatives are other-addressed.

The whole point is to justify Kant's categorical imperative, and perhaps do not fail!