That pillar box seems red to Grice

Speranza

Jones was suggesting that we take a look at Neale's "Ling and Phil." I am. Neale considers the 'address' to the Aristotelian Society. Not to be pedantic, but this is part of a symposium. I want to think that Grice indeed chose the topic! But Grice had to travel far enough! To Cambridge, to deliver it! Braithwaite was the Chair, and A. R. White responded.

I like to think it was Warnock's idea.

Warnock taught at Oxford.
Grice taught at Oxford.

Neale considers:

"Warnock taught at Oxford and Grice taught at Oxford."

Also:

"Warnock and Grice wrote, "Perception"".

I.e., as much as Grice and Strawson both taught at Oxford and wrote "In defence of a dogma", there are loads of stuff in the Grice Collection now belonging to this Warnock-Grice (intended) retrospective.

It is interesting that it is Warnock the only one who CARED to publish the whole symposium in full in 1967 ("The philosophy of perception", Oxford readings in philosophy") where he refers to the 'ingenioius' manoeuvre, 'resourceful' by Grice.

Neale notes:

"Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear who is supposed to have assailed the CTP in this way because “The Causal Theory of Perception” contains no reference to any work in which this “frequently propounded” objection appears."

This is too true. I think White explores this. But I like to think that Grice is having Witters in mind. In Strand 6, of "Retrospective Epilogue" he indeed states that his idea of 'implicature' came from his work in the philosophy of perception (problems with sense-datum theory). Only LATER did the application to problems of "LOGIC" and conversation proper came to his mind (influenced of course by Strawson's challenge which Russell had found odious, "Mr. Strawson on referring", Mind).

----

So, Grice, who indeed quotes from Price, and was giving joint seminars in the philosophy of perception with Warnock, just took the point about the 'causal theory of perception' for granted, and considered what he found objections as based on an inadequate treatment of the 'implications' of "seems" statements. Or something!

Cheers.