R. B. Jones and I are discussing this rather fascinating quote by Russell (or Lord Russell, as I prefer). Russell, in a rather over-quoted quote, speaks about the 'new philosophy'.
It is important to bear that in mind, since the quote is usually NOT given in full. It is also interesting that it comes from "My" (i.e. Russell's) "Philosophical Development" -- since the source is not often given, either.
The main focus of those who make use of the quote is Russell's game (or play) with 'silly': twice in the expression: "silly things silly people say" and variants thereof.
So let us re-quote the quote:
New philosophy,
Lord Russell writes,
"seems to concern itself, not with the world and our relation to it, but only with the different ways in which silly people can say silly things. If this is all that philosophy has to offer, I cannot think that it is a worthy subject of study. The only reason that I can imagine for the restriction of philosophy to such triviality is the desire to separate it sharply from empirical science. I do not think such a separation can be usefully made."
Jones comments and makes various points:
Jones's first point:
"Interesting of course that Carnap, who saw himself as progressing Russell's
conception of scientific philosophy, had no problem in distinguishing philosophy
from empirical science.
It seems that what Russell intended to put into that conception was not exactly what Carnap took out of it."
It seems that what Russell intended to put into that conception was not exactly what Carnap took out of it."
Jones's second point:
"Furthermore, Carnap's gripe with Grice would more likely to have been that the study of ordinary language belongs to science rather than philosophy, so the one merit it would not have for him would be to distinguish itself from empirical science. ... (I hope to be back on the Grice/Carnap connection soon)."
I would, for starters, don't think that Carnap would use a silly word such as 'silly'. Russell, on the other hand, _revels_ on it.
It's silly things SAID -- i.e. Aristotle's TA LEGOMENA -- by silly people.
As opposed to smart things said by the smarties.
---- Jones is of course alright that Carnap, unlike Russell, had no problem in distinguishing philosophy from 'empirical science'.
Russell seems always to have been confused about things -- but then, the president of the (so-called) Russell Society may disagree. Note that he neve wrote a book,
"My scientific development"
not even for George Allen & Unwin who would have published ANYTHING coming from 'the master'.
"silly" is, if silly, a beautiful word. It's SO English. It means, of course, 'blessed', as in the Virgin Mary. Check Etymology online:
Old English gesælig "happy" (related to sæl "happiness"), from West Germanic *sæligas (cf. Old Norse sæll "happy," Gothic sels "good, kindhearted," Old Saxon salig, Middle Dutch salich, Old High German salig, German selig "blessed, happy, blissful"), from PIE root *sel- (2) "happy, of good mood; to favor" (cf. Latin solari "to comfort").
The site --
The site --
-- goes on to expand:
"The word's considerable sense development moved from "blessed" to "pious," to "innocent" (c.1200), to "harmless," to "pitiable" (late 13c.), to "weak" (c.1300), to "feeble in mind, lacking in reason, foolish" (1570s). Further tendency toward "stunned, dazed as by a blow" (1886) in knocked silly, etc. Silly season in journalism slang is from 1861 (August and September, when newspapers compensate for a lack of hard news by filling up with trivial stories). Silly Putty trademark claims use from July 1949."
If I relate this to Grice and Strawson, that's because by that time Russell was replying to "Mr." (later Sir) P. F. Strawson in "Mind" -- "Mister Strawson on Referring" -- I always found the "mister" otiose. But then if I had been Sir Peter (Strawson) I would have responded, "Baron Russell on stuff".
---- what's the good of having a nobility title if you're not gonna flaunt it?
-----
Carnap, as the programme to a recent seminar at Norwich included -- had a very interesting position regarding ordinary language.
And we KNOW what Grice's position was.
"Silly people" should better read "layman" or "man in the street". Oddly, if by 'street' we mean "High Street" in Oxford, this may NOT apply. For some reason, when one thinks of the expression, "man in the street" one thinks of Piccadilly, or 5th Avenue, rather than a student (not a man) on High Street, but let that go.
----
"Silly things" may be said CONSISTENTLY by silly people.
Are silly people silly ALL the time? Is 'silly' a disposition. Cfr. "I'm feeling silly today". Note how the the adjective can be used adverbially in some idiolects ("I ate the big sandwich silly").
I would think that silly is a disposition --. Now if 'silly' DOES mean 'happy' -- as this Etymology Online source indicates it did -- then of course, one wouldn't call a person SILLY until she is dead -- silliness, like happiness, relates to a long period (NOT of time! that's one of the most atrocious otiosity I've heard).
Now a person, when silly, may come up with one silly thing to say.
-----
Russell was right that the 'new' philosophy was too much onto that. Cfr. Urmson on parenthetical uses of 'I believe' or 'I regret' as non-truth-conditionally: "your son, I regret, is dead" being one of his examples -- an officer informing the mother of a soldier during the 'phoney' war.
But then, Grice and company, were well aware of various criticisms on that. Grice enjoyed the criticisms by Bergmann ("I won't waste my time with an English futilitarian", he would excuse himself on attending an Oxford seminar), and Gellner, the French philosopher, who never enjoyed the Oxbridge background that Grice did.
But _my_ favourite criticism comes from, of all people, Hywell Lewis:
Clarity Is not Enough: Essays in Criticism of Linguistic Philosophy
www.librarything.com/work/2247205
Clarity Is not Enough: Essays in Criticism of Linguistic Philosophy by H. D. Lewis.
----
For we can see Grice as 'clarifying' the implicatures (AND disimplicatures) of the silly things that silly people sometime say --.
And Grice NEVER thought this was ENOUGH.
But, for now, 'nuff!
Cheers
Posts
I love the etymology of silly.
ReplyDeleteHere's another Russellian sally (on "the cult of ordinary usage"):
The doctrine, as I understand it, consists in maintaining that the language of daily life, with words used in their ordinary meanings, suffices for philosophy, which has no need of technical terms or of changes in the significance of common terms. I find myself totally unable to accept this view. I object to it:
Because it is insincere;
Because it is capable of excusing ignorance of mathematics, physics and neurology in those who have had only a classical education;
Because it is advanced by some in a tone of unctuous rectitude, as if opposition to it were a sin against democracy;
Because it makes philosophy trivial;
Because it makes almost inevitable the perpetuation amongst philosophers of the muddle-headedness they have taken over from common sense.
We may ask, who were Russell's target's here?
Surely not Grice. Did anyone fit this bill?
RBJ