THESAVRVS GRICEIANVM I

THESAVRVS GRICEIANVM

H. P. Grice, St. John’s Oxford

Compiled by Grice’s Playgroup, The Bodleian

a: Grice knows that his problem with Strawson is the Square of Opposition (Grice 1989: )So he is well aware of the question about Barbara and Celarent. So this is the ‘universalis dedicativa.’ Vide below entries for “E” (universalis abdicative), “I” (particularis dedicativa)  and “O” (particularis abdicative). The square (figura quadrata) is generated by criss-crossing the two categories, aptly sub-divided, -- ‘quantitas’ into universalis and particularis, and qualitaas into dedicativa and the abdicative. Refs.: Grice 1989

∀: rendered by Grice as “all,” borrowed from Gentzen’s “All-Zeichen.” (Peano did not use it). Grice is a stickler, and uses the brackets, (∀x) –  Grice thinks that Whitehead and Russell did perfectly well with their substitutional account to ‘all,’ “even it that displeased my tutee P. F. Strawson.” Parsons, who Grice admires, suggests that one treat quantification over predicative classes substitutionally, and capture “the idea that classes are not“real” independently of the expression forthem. Grice perceives a difficulty relating to the allegedly dubious admissibility of propositions as entities. A perfectly sound, though perhaps somewhat superficial, reply to the objection as it is presented would be that in any definition of “Emissor E communicates that p” iff “Emissor E desires that p.” which Grice would be willing to countenance,  'p' operates simply as a ‘gap sign.’ ‘p’ does appear in the analysandum, and re-appears in the corresponding analysans. If Grice were to advance the not wholly plausible thesis that “to feel Byzantine” is just to have a an anti-rylean agitation which is caused by the thought that Grice is or might *be* Byzantine, it would surely be ridiculous to criticize Grice on the grounds that Grice saddles himself with an ontological commitment to feelings, or to modes of feeling. And why? Well, because, alla Parsons, if a quantifier is covertly involved at all, it will only be a universal quantifier which in such a case as this is more than adequately handled by a substitutional account of quantification. Grice’s situation vis-a-vis the ‘proposition’ is in no way different. There should be an entry for the inverted E, the first entry under the E.

abderites: Grice was something of a logical atomist, so he used to refer to himself as a neo-Abderite. The reference being to Democritus and Leucippus, from Abdera.

abdicative: while one can draw a skull communicating that there is danger; one can then cross out the skull indicating that there is no danger. So the emissor communicates that there is no danger. Or rather, the emissor communicates that it is not the case that there is danger. Since this involves a ‘that’-clause, it is not unreasonable to speak of a ‘propositio,’ and such would be ‘abdicativa.’ In his earliest reflections on the topic, Grice draws on sub-perceptual illustrations rendered more or less as involving two items of ‘propositio dedicativa’ and their negation and privation: ‘The bell tolls in Gb” and “The pillar box is red.” For the latter, “The pillar box is not blue” can be uttered as a conclusion (“If the pillar box is red, it is not the case that the pillar box is blue.”). For the former case, “The bell tolls in Ab” may do. “If the bell tolls in Gb, it is not the case that the bell tolls in Ab.” For Grice, the métier of a propositio abidcativa has to do with the abdicatum of a conjunctum. For a more primitive rationale, Grice does not see the complete justification. That means that Grice sees that there are OPTIONS TO introducing a ‘propositio abdicativa’. These options are of two kinds. One is the ‘stroke.’ If you draw a skull, a stroke, and a skull, you communicate that it is not the case there is danger. The other involves “other than” or “incompatible.” Again, drawsing a skull and writing INCOMPATIBLE and drawing another skull and you communicate that it is not the case that there is danger.

abdicatum: Apuleius makes an analogy that Grice (and the Grecians before) finds interesting. It is the ‘propositio dedicative’ apophatike’/’propositio abdicativa’ kataphatike distinction. The ‘abdicatum’ would be the ‘negatum.’ The ‘dedicatum’ would be the ‘affirmatum.’ Apuleius’s terms make the correlation evident and Grice preferred it to that of ‘affirmatum’ and ‘negatum,’ – “where the correlation is not that obvious.” So there is the abdicatum, the negatum, and the negation. ‘Negatum’ and ‘affirmatum’ are actually used when translating Husserl from the vernacular! For Husserl, Negation negation a noetic modification of a positing, noematic cancellation  every ‘negatum’ an Object posited as existing, reiterated negation; a ‘negatum’ not a determination produced by reflection; non-being equivalent to being validly negated. Grice’s interest in ‘not’ as a unary functor is central. Grice was ablet to tutor Strawson in philosophy in that famous term. In his “Introduction to logical theory,” Strawson alleges to show that some logical ‘laws,’ taken together, show that any truth-functional sentence or formula in which the main constant is “~ “ is the contradictory of the sentence or formula which results from omitting that sign.” Strawson goes on to say: “A standard and primary use of “not” in a sentence is to assert the contradictory of the statement which would be made by the use, in the same context, of the same sentence without “not.” Of course we must not suppose that the insertion of “not” anywhere in any sentence always has this effect. “Some bulls are not dangerous” is not the contradictory of “Some bulls are dangerous.” This is why the identification of “~” with “it is not the case that” is to be preferred to its identification with “not” simpliciter. This identification, then, involves only those minimum departures from the logic of ordinary language which must always result from the formal logician's activity of codifying rules with the help of verbal patterns : viz., (i) the adoption of a rigid rule when ordinary language permits variations and deviations from the standard use (cf. rules “ ~(p Λ ~p)” and “ ~~p ≡ p” and the discussions in 1-8, and 2-9); (ii) that stretching of the sense of ‘exemplify’ which allows, us, e.g., to regard ‘Tom is not mad’ as well as ‘Not all bulls are dangerous’ as 'exemplifications’ of  not-p.’” Strawson goes on: “So we shall call ‘~’ the negation sign, and read ‘~’as ‘not.’ One might be tempted to suppose that declaring formulae “ ~(p Λ ~p)” and “p v ~p” laws of the system was the same as saying that, as regards this system, a statement cannot be both true and false and must be either true or false. But it is not. The rules that  “ ~(p Λ ~p)” and “p v ~p” are analytic are not rules about ‘true’ and ‘false;’ they are rules about ‘~.; They say that, given that a statement has one of the two truth-values, then it is logically impossible for both that statement and the corresponding statement of the form ‘ ~p’  to be true, and for both that statement and the corresponding statement of the form ‘~p’ to be false.” A bit of palæo-Griceian history is in order. Sheffer, defines ‘not’ and negation in terms of incompatibility in ‘A set of five independent postulates for Boolean algebras, with application to logical constants,’ Trans. American Mathematical Society. Grice does refers to ‘the strokes.’ His use of the plural is interesting as a nod to Peirce’s minute logic in his ‘Boolian [sic] algebra with one constant.’ There is indeed Peirce’s stroke, or ampheck (↓), Sheffer’s stroke (|, /, ↑), and and Quine’s stroke (†, strictly Quine’s dagger). Some philosophers prefer to refer to Peirces Stroke as Peirce’s arrow, or strictly stressed double-edged sword. His editors disambiguate his ampheck, distinguishing between the dyadic functor or connective equivalent to Sheffer’s stroke and ‘nor.’ While Whitehead, Russell, and Witters love Sheffer’s stroke, Hilbert does not: ‘‘p/p’ ist dann gleichbedeutend mit ‘X̄.’ Grice explores primitiveness. It is possible, to some extent, to qualify this or that device in terms of primitiveness. As regards ‘not,’ if a communication-system did not contain a unitary negative device, there would be many things that communicators can now communicate that they would be then unable to communicate. He has two important caveats. That would be the case unless, first, the communication-system contained some very artificial-seeming connective like one or other of the strokes, and, second, communicators put themselves to a good deal of trouble, as Plato does in ‘The Sophist’ with ‘diaphoron,’ that Wiggins symbolises with ‘Δ,’ to find, more or less case by case, complicated forms of expression, not necessarily featuring a connective, but involving such expressions as ‘other than’or ‘incompatible with.’ Grice further refers to Aristotle’s ‘apophasis’ in De Int.17a25. Grice, always lured by the potentiality of a joint philosophical endeavour, treasures his collaboration with Strawson that is followed by one with Austin on Cat. and De Int. So what does Aristotle say in De Int.? Surely Aristotle could have started by referring to Plato’s Parmenides, aptly analysed by Wiggins. Since Aristotle is more of a don than a poet, he has to give ‘not’ a name: ‘ἀπόφασις ἐστιν ἀπόφανσίς τινος ἀπό τινος,’a predication of one thing away from another, i.e. negation of it. This is Grice’s reflection, in a verificationist vein, of two types of this or that negative utterance. His immediate trigger is Ryle’s contribution on a symposium on Bradley’s idea of an internal relation, where Grice appeals to Peirce’s incompatibility. ‘The proposition ‘This is red’ is imcompatible with the proposition, ‘This is not coloured.’ While he uses a souly verb or predicate for one of them, Grice will go back to the primacy of ‘potching’ at a later stage. A P potches that the obble is not fang, but feng. It is convenient to introduce this or that soul-state, ψ, sensing that …, or perceiving that … Grice works mainly with two scenarios, both involved with the first-person singular pronoun ‘I’ with which he is obsessed. Grice’s first scenario concerns a proposition that implies another proposition featuring ‘someone, viz. I,’ the first-person singular pronoun as subject, a sensory modal verb, and an object, the proposition, it is not the case that ‘the α is φ₁.’ The denotatum of the first-person pronoun perceives that a thing displays this or the visual sense-datum of a colour, and the corresponding sensory modal predicate. Via a reductive (but not reductionist) analysis, we get that, by uttering ‘It is not the case that I see that the pillar box is blue,’ the utterer U means, i. e. m-intends his addressee A to believe, U he sees that the pillar box is red. U’s source, reason, ground, knowledge, or belief, upon which he bases his uttering his utterance is U’s *indirect* mediated actual experience, belief, or knowledge, linked to a sense-datum φ₂ (red) other than φ₁ (blue). Grice’s second scenario concerns a proposition explicitly featuring the first-person singular pronoun, an introspection, involving an auditory sense-datum of a noise. Via reductive (but not reductionist) analysis, we get that, by uttering ‘It is not the case that I hear that the bell tolls in Gb,’ U means that he lacks the experience of hearing that the bell tolls simpliciter. U’s source, reason, ground, knowledge, or belief, upon which he bases his uttering his utterance is the *direct* unmediated felt absence, or absentia, or privatio or privation, or apophasis, verified by introspection, of the co-relative ψ, which Grice links to the absence of the experience, belief, or knowledge, of the sense-datum, the apophasis of the experience, which is thereby negated. In either case, Grice’s analysans do not feature ‘not.’ Grice turns back to the topic in seminars later at Oxford in connection with Strawson’s cursory treatment of ‘not’ in “Logical Theory.”‘Not’ (and ~.) is the first pair, qua unary satisfactory-value-functor (unlike this or that dyadic co-ordinate, and, or, or the dyadic sub-ordinate if) in Grice’s list of this or that vernacular counterpart attached to this or that formal device. Cf. ‘Smith has not ceased from eating iron,’ in ‘Causal theory.’ In the fourth James lecture, Grice explores a role for negation along the lines of Wilson’s Statement and Inference.’ Grice’s ‘Vacuous Names’ contains Gentzen-type syntactic inference rules for both ‘not’’s introduction (+, ~) and the elimination (-, ~) and the correlative value assignation. Note that there are correlative rules for Peirce’s arrow. Grice’s motivation is to qualify ‘not’ with a subscript scope-indicating device on ~ for a tricky case like ‘The climber of Mt. Everest on hands and knees is not to atttend the party in his honour.’ The logical form becomes qualified: ‘~₂(Marmaduke Bloggs is coming)₁’, or ‘~₂(Pegasus flies)₁.’ generic formula is ~₂p₁, which indicates that p is introduced prior to ~. In the earlier James lectures he used the square bracket device. The generic formula being ‘~[p],’ where [p] reads that p is assigned common-ground status. Cancelling the implicata may be trickier. ‘It is not the case that I hear that the bell tolls because it is under reparation.’ ‘That is not blue; it’s an optical illusion.’ Cf. Grice on ‘It is an illusion. What is it?’ Cf. The king of France is not bald because there is no king of France. In Presupposition, the fourth Urbana lecture, Grice uses square brackets for the subscript scope indicating device. ‘Do not arrest [the intruder]!,’ the device meant to assign common-ground status. In ‘Method” Grice plays with the internalisation of a pre-theoretical concept of not within the scope of ‘ψ.’ In the Kant lectures on “Aspects,” Grice explores ‘not’ within the scope of this or that mode operator, as in the buletic utterance, ‘Do not arrest the intruder!’ Is that internal narrow scope, ‘!~p,’ or external wide scope, ‘~!p’? Grice also touches on this or that mixed-mode utterance, and in connection with the minor problem of presupposition within the scope of an operator other than the indicative-mode operator. ‘Smith has not ceased from eating iron, because Smith does not exist ‒ cf. Hamlet sees that his father is on the rampants, but the sight is not reciprocated ‒ Macbeth sees that Banquo is near him, but his vision is not reciprocated. Grice is having in mind Hare’s defense of a non-doxastic utterance. In his commentary in PGRICE, Grice expands on this metaphysical construction routine of Humeian projection with the pre-intuitive concept of  ‘not,’ specifying the different stages the intuitive concept undergoes until it becomes fully rationally recostructed, as something like a Fregeian sense. In the centerpiece lecture of the William James set, Grice explores Wilson’s Statement and inference to assign a métier to ‘not,’ and succeeds in finding one. The conversational métier of ‘not’ is explained in terms of the conversational implicatum. By uttering ‘Smith has not been to prison yet,’ U implies that some utterer has, somewhere, sometime, expressed an opinion to the contrary. This is connected by Grice with the ability a rational creature has to possess to survive. The creature has to be able, as Sheffer notes, to deny this or that. Grices notable case is the negation of a conjunction. So it may well be that the most rational role for ‘not’ is not primary in that it is realised once less primitive operators are introduced. Is there a strict conceptual distinction, as Grice suggests, between negation and privation? If privation involves or presupposes negation, one might appeal to something like Modified Occam’s Razor (M. O. R.), do not multiply negations beyond necessity. In his choice of examples, Grice seems to be implicating negation for an empirically verifiable, observational utterance, such as U does not see that the pillar box is blue not because U does not exist, but on the basis of U’s experiencing, knowing, believing and indeed seeing that the pillar box is red. This is a negation, proper, or simpliciter (even if it involves a sense-datum phi2 incompatible with sense-datum phi1. Privation, on the other hand, would be involved in an utterance arrived via introspection, such as U does not hear that the bell is ringing on the basis of his knowing that he is aware of the absence, simpliciter, of an experience to that effect. Aristotle, or some later Aristotelian, may have made the same distinction, within apophasis between negation or negatio and privation or privatio. Or not. Of course, Grice is ultimately looking for the rationale behind the conversational implicatum in terms of a principle of conversational helpfulness underlying his picture of conversation as rational co-operation. To use his Pological jargon in Method, in Pirotese and Griceish There is the P₁, who potches that the obble is not fang, but feng. P₁ utters p explicitly conveying that p. P₂ alternatively feels like negating that. By uttering ~p, P₂ explicitly conveys that ~p. P₁ volunteers to P₂, ~p, explicitly conveying that ~p. Not raining! Or No bull. You are safe. Surely a rational creature should be capable to deny this or that, as Grice puts it in Indicative conditionals. Interestingly, Grice does not consider, as Gazdar does, under Palmer), he other possible unitary functors (three in a standard binary assignation of values) – just negation, which reverses the satisfactory-value of the radix or neustic.  In terms of systematics, thus, it is convenient to regard Grices view on negation and privation as his outlook on the operators as this or that procedure by the utterer that endows him with this or that basic expressive, operative power. In this case, the expressive power is specifically related to his proficiency with not. The proficiency is co-related with this or that device in general, whose vernacular expression will bear a formal counterpart. Many of Grices comments addressed to this more general topic of this or that satisfactoriness-preserving operator apply to not, and thus raise the question about the explicitum or explicatum of not. A Griceian should not be confused. The fact that Grice does not explicitly mention not or negation when exploring the concept of a generic formal device does not mean that what he says about formal device may not be particularised to apply to not or negation. His big concession is that Whitehead and Russell (and Peano before them) are right about the explicitum or explicatum of not being ~, even if Grice follows Hilbert and Ackermann in dismissing Peirces arrow for pragmatic reasons. This is what Grice calls the identity thesis to oppose to Strawsons divergence thesis between not and ~. More formally, by uttering Not-p, U explicitly conveys that ~p. Any divergence is explained via the implicatum. A not utterance is horribly uninformative, and not each of them is of philosophical interest. Grice joked with Bradley and Searles The man in the next table is not lighting the cigarette with a twenty-dollar bill, the denotatum of the Subjects being a Texas oilman in his country club. The odd implicatum is usually to the effect that someone thought otherwise. In terms of Cook Wilson, the role of not has more to do with the expressive power of a rational creature to deny a molecular or composite utterance such as p and q Grice comments that in the case of or, the not may be addressed, conversationally, to the utterability of the disjunction. His example involves the logical form Not (p or q). It is not the case that Wilson or Heath will be prime minister. Theres always hope for Nabarro or Thorpe.  The utterer is, at the level of the implicatum, not now contradicting what his co-conversationalist has utterered. The utterer is certainly not denying that Wilson will be Prime Minister. It is, rather, that the utterer U wishes not to assert or state, say, what his co-conversant has asserted, but, instead, to substitute a different statement or claim which the utterer U regards as preferable under the circumstances. Grice calls this substitutive disagreement. This was a long-standing interest of Grices: an earlier manuscript reads Wilson or MacMillan will be prime minister. Let us take a closer look at the way Grice initially rephrases his two scenarios involving not as attached to an auditory and a visual sense datum. I do not hear that the bell is ringing is rationally justified by the absence or absentia of the experience of hearing it. I do not see that the pillar box is blue is rationally justified by U’s sensing that the pillar box is red. The latter depends on Kant’s concept of the synthetic a priori with which Grice tests with his childrens playmates. Can a sweater be red and green all over? No stripes allowed! Can a pillar box be blue and red all over? Cf. Ryles’ssymposium on negation with Mabbott, for the Aristotelian Society, a source for Grices reflexion. Ryle later discussing Bradleys internal relations, reflects that that the proposition, ‘This pillar box is only red’ is incompatible with ‘This pillar box is only blue.’ As bearing this or that conversational implicata, Grices two scenarios can be re-phrased, unhelpfully, as I am unhearing a noise and That is  unred. The apparently unhelpful point bears however some importance. It shows that negation and not are not co-extensive. The variants also demonstrate that the implicatum, qua conversational, rather than conventional, is non-detachable. Not is hardly primtive pure Anglo-Saxon. It is the rather convoluted abbreviation of ne-aught. Its ne that counts as the proper, pure, amorphous Anglo-Saxon negation, as in a member of parliament (if not a horse) uttering nay.  Grices view of conversation as rational co-operation, as displayed in this or that conversational implicatum necessitates that the implicatum is never attached to this or that expression. Here the favoured, but not exclusive expression, is not, since Strawson uses it. But the vernacular provides a wealth of expressive ways to be negative! Grice possibly chose negation not because, as with this or that nihilistic philosopher, such as Schopenhauer, or indeed Parmenides, he finds the concept a key one. But one may well say that this is the Schopenhauerian or the Parmenidesian in Griceian. Grice is approaching not in linguistic, empiricist, or conceptual key. He is applying the new Oxonian methodology: the reductive analysis alla Russell in terms of logical construction. Grices implies priority is with by uttering x, by which U explicitly conveys that ~p, U implicitly conveys that q. The essay thus elaborates on this implicated q. For the record, nihilism was coined by philosopher Jacobi, while the more primitive negatio and privatio is each a time-honoured item in the philosophical lexicon, with which mediaeval this or that speculative grammarian is especially obsessed. Negatio translates the ‘apophasis’ of Aristotle, and has a pretty pedigreed history. The philosophical lexicon has nĕgātĭo, f. negare, which L and S, unhelpfully, render as a denying, denial, negation, Cicero, Sull. 13, 39: negatio inficiatioque facti, id. Part. 29, 102. L and S go on to add that negatio is predicated of to the expression that denies, a negative. Grice would say that L and S should realise that its the utterer who denies. The source L and S give is ADogm. Plat. 3, p. 32, 38. As for Grices other word, there is “prīvātĭo,” f. privare, which again unhelpfully, L and S render as a taking away, privation of a thing. doloris, Cic. Fin. 1, 11, 37, and 38, or pain-free, as Grice might prefer, cf. zero-tolerance. L and S also cite: 2, 9, 28: culpæ, Gell. 2, 6, 10. The negatio-privatio distinction is attested in Grecian, indeed the distinction requires its own entry. For it is Boethius who first renders Aristotle’s ‘hexis’ into ‘habitus’ and Aristotle’s steresis’ into ‘privatio.’ So the the Grecians were never just happy with “ἀπόφασις (A)” and they had to keep multiplying negations beyond necessity. The noun is from “ἀπόφημι.” Now L and S unhepfully render the noun as as denial, negation, adding “oκατάφασις,” for which they cites from The Sophista by Plato (263e), to  give then the definition “ἀπόφασις ἐστιν ἀπόφανσίς τινος ἀπό τινος,” a predication of one thing away from another, i.e. negation of it, for which they provide the source that Grice is relying.  on: Arist. Int.17a25, cf. APo. 72a14; ἀπόφασις τινός, negation, exclusion of a thing,  Pl. Cra. 426d; δύο ἀ. μίαν κατάφασιν ἀποτελοῦσι Luc. Gall.11. If he was not the first to explore philosophically negation, Grice may be regarded as a philosopher who most explored negation as occurring in a that-clause followed by a propositional complexus that contains ~, and as applied to a personal agent, in a lower branch of philosophical psychology. It is also the basis for his linguistic botany. He seems to be trying to help other philosopher not to fall in the trap of thinking that not has a special sense. The utterer means that ~p. In what ways is that to be interpreted? Grice confessed to never been impressed by Ayer. The crudities and dogmatisms seemed too pervasive. Is Grice being an empiricist and a verificationist? Let us go back to This is not red and I am not hearing a noise. Grices suggestion is that the incompatible fact offering a solution to this problem is the fact that the utterer of “Someone, viz. I, does not hear that the bell tolls” is indicating (and informing) that U merely entertains the positive (affirmative) proposition, Someone, viz. I, hears that the bell tolls, without having an attitude of certainty towards it. More generally, Grice is proposing, like Bradley and indeed Bosanquet, who Grice otherwise regards as a minor philosopher, a more basic Subjects-predicate utterance. The α is not β. The utterer states I do not know that α is β if and only if every present mental or souly process, of mine, has some characteristic incompatible with the knowledge that α is β. One may propose a doxastic weaker version, replacing the dogmatic Oxonian know with believe. Grices view of compatibility is an application of the Sheffer stroke that Grice will later use in accounts of not. ~p iff p|p or ~p ≡df p|p. But then, as Grice points out, Sheffer is hardly Griceian. If Pirotese did not contain a unitary negative device, there would be many things that a P should be able to express that the P should be unable to express unless Pirotese contained some very artificially-looking dyadic functor like one or other of the strokes, or the P put himself to a good deal of trouble to find, more or less case by case, complicated forms of expression, as Platos Parmenides does, involving such expressions as other than, or incompatible with. V. Wiggins on Platos Parmenides in a Griceian key. Such a complicate form of expression would infringe the principle of conversational helpfulness, notably in its desideratum of conversational clarity, or conversational perspicuity [sic], where the sic is Grices seeing that unsensitive Oxonians sometimes mistake perspicuity for the allegedly, cognate perspicacity (L. perspicacitas, like perspicuitas, from perspicere). Grice finds the unitary brevity of not-p attractive. Then theres the pretty Griceian idea of the pregnant proposition. Im not hearing a nose is pregnant, as Occam has it, with I am hearing a noise. A scholastic and mediæval philosopher loves to be figurative. Grices main proposal may be seen as drawing on this or that verificationist assumption by Ayer, who actually has a later essay on not falsely connecting it with falsity. Grices proposed better analysis would please Ayer, had Grice been brought on the right side of the tracks, since it can be Subjectsed to a process of verification, on the understanding that either perception through the senses (It is red) or introspection (Every present mental or souly process of mine ) is each an empirical phenomenon. But there are subtleties to be drawn. At Oxford, Grices view on negation will influence philosophers like Wiggins, and in a negative way, Cohen, who raises the Griceian topic of the occurrence of negation in embedded clauses, found by Grice to be crucial for the rational genitorial justification of not as a refutation of the composite p and q), and motivating Walker with a reply (itself countered by Cohen ‒ Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended?). So problems are not absent, as they should not! Grice re-read Peirces definition or reductive analysis of not and enjoyed it!  Peirce discovers the logical connective Grice calls the Sheffer Stroke, as well as the related connective nor (also called Joint Denial, and quite appropriately Peirces Arrow, with other Namess in use being Quines Arrow or Quines Dagger and today usually symbolized by “/”). The relevant manuscript, numbered MS 378 in a subsequent edition and titled A Boolian [sic] Algebra with One Constant, MS 378, was actually destined for discarding and was salvaged for posterity A fragmentary text by Peirce also shows familiarity with the remarkable meta-logical characteristics that make a single function functionally complete, and this is also the case with Peirces unfinished Minute Logic: these texts are published posthumously. Peirce designates the two truth functions, nand and nor, by using the symbol “” which he called ampheck, coining this neologism from the Grecian ἀμφήκης, of equal length in both directions. Peirces editors disambiguate the use of symbols by assigning “” to the connective we call Sheffers troke while preserving the symbol “/” for nor.  In MS 378, A Boolian Algebra with One Constant, by Peirce, tagged “to be discarded” at the Department of Philosophy at Harvard, Peirce reduces the number of logical operators to one constant. Peirce states that his notation uses the minimum number of different signs and shows for the first time the possibility of writing both universal and particular propositions with but one copula. Peirce’s notation is later termed Sheffers stroke, and is also well-known as the nand operation, in Peirce’s terms the operation by which two propositions written in a pair are considered to be both denied. In the same manuscript, Peirce also discovers what is the expressive completeness of ‘nor,’ indeed today rightly recognized as the Peirce arrow. Like Sheffer, of Cornell, independently does later (only to be dismissed by Hilbert and Ackermann), Peirce understands that these two connectives can be used to reduce all mathematically definable connectives (also called primitives and constants) of propositional logic. This means that all definable connectives of propositional logic can be defined by using only Sheffers stroke or nor as the single connective. No other connective (or associated function) that takes one or two variables as inputs has this property. Standard, two-valued propositional logic has no unary functions that have the remarkable property of functional completeness. At first blush, availability of this option ensures that economy of resources can be obtained—at least in terms of how many functions or connectives are to be included as undefined. Unfortunately, as Grice, following Hilbert and Ackermann realise, there is a trade-off between this philosophical semantic gain in economy of symbolic resources and the pragmatically unwieldy length and rather counterintuitive, to use Grices phrase, appearance of the formulas that use only the one connective.  It is characteristic of his logical genius, however, and emblematic of his rather under-appreciated, surely not by Grice, contributions to the development of semiotics that Peirce grasps the significance of functional completeness and figure out what truth functions — up to arity 2 — are functionally complete for two-valued propositional logic, never mind helping the philosopher to provide a reductive analysis of negation that Grice is looking for. Strictly, this is the property of weak functional completeness, given that we disregard whether constants or zero-ary functions like 1 or 0 can be defined. Peirce subscribes to a semeiotic view, popular in the Old World with Ogden and Welby, and later Grice, according to which the fundamental nature and proper tasks of the formal study of communication are defined by the rules set down for the construction and manipulation of symbolic resources. A proliferation of symbols for the various connectives that are admitted into the signature of a logical system suffers from a serious defect on this view. The symbolic grammar fails to match or represent the logical fact of interdefinability of the connectives, and reductive analysis of all to one. Peirce is willing sometimes to accept constructing a formal signature for two-valued propositional logic by using the two-members set of connectives, which is minimally functionally complete. This means that these two connectives — or, if we are to stick to an approach that emphasizes the notational character of logical analysis, these two symbols —are adequate expressively. Every mathematically definable connective of the logic can be defined by using only these two. And the set is minimally functionally complete in that neither of these connectives can be defined by the other (so, as we say, they are both independent relative to each other.) The symbol   can be viewed as representing a constant truth function (either unary or binary) that returns the truth value 0 for any input or inputs. Or it can be regarded as a constant, which means that it is a zero=ary (zero-input) function, a degenerate function, which refers to the truth value 0. Although not using, as Grice does, Peanos terminology, Peirce takes the second option. This set has cardinality 2 (it has exactly 2 members) but it is not the best we can do. Peirces discovery of what we have called the Sheffer functions or strokes (anachronistically and unfairly to Peirce, as Grice notes, but bowing to convention) shows that we can have a set of cardinality 1 (a one-member set or a so-called singleton) that is minimally functionally complete with respect to the definable connectives of two-valued propositional logic. Thus, either one of the following sets can do. The sets are functionally complete and, because they have only one member each, we say that the connectives themselves have the property of functional completeness. / is the symbol of Sheffers stroke or nand and /is the symbol of the Peirce Arrow or nor. Grice stipulates as such, even though he does not introduce his grammar formally. It is important to show ow these functions can define other functions. Algebraically approached, this is a matter of functional composition In case one wonders why the satisfaction with defining the connectives of the set that comprises the symbols for negation, inclusive disjunction, and conjunction, there is an explanation. There is an easy, although informal, way to show that this set is functionally complete. It is not minimally functionally complete because nor and nand are inter-definable. But it is functionally complete. Thus, showing that one can define these functions suffices for achieving functional completeness. Definability should be thought as logical equivalence. One connective can be defined by means of others if and only if the formulae in the definition (what is defined and what is doing the defining) are logically equivalent. Presuppose the truth-tabular definitions of the connectives.  Grice enjoyed that. Meanwhile, at Corpus, Grice is involved in serious philosophical studies under the tutelage of Hardie. While his philosophical socialising is limited, having been born on the wrong side of the tracks, first at Corpus, and then at Merton, and ending at St. Johns, Grice fails to attend the seminal meetings at All Souls held on Thursday evenings by the play group of the seven (Austin, Ayer, Berlin, Hampshire, MacDermott, MacNabb, and Woozley). Three of them will join Grice in the new play group after the war: Austin, Hampshire, and Woozley. But at St. Johns Grice tutors Strawson, and learns all about the linguistic botany methodology on his return from the navy. Indeed, his being appointed Strawson as his tutee starts a life-long friendship and collaboration. There are separate entries for the connectives: conjunction, disjunction, and conditional. Refs.: Allusions to negation are scattered, notably in Essay 4 in WoW, but also in “Method in philosophical psychology,” and “Prejudices and predilections” (repr. in “Conception”), and under semantics and syntax. There are specific essays of different dates, in s. V, in two separate folders, in BANC.

absolutum: If we say, emissor E communicates that p, what is its relatum? Nothing. The theory of communication NEEDS to be relative. To search for the absolute in the theory of communication is otiose, for in communication there is an unavoidable relatum, which is the emissor himself. Now Grice is interested in an emissor that communicates that p is absolute. So we need absolute and meta-absolute. I.e. if the emissor can communicate that ‘p’ is absolute, he has more ground to exert his authority into inducing in his addressee that the addressee believe what he is intended to believe.

The absolutum is one, unlike Grice’s absoluta, or absolutes. Trust Grice to pluralise Bradley’s absolute. While it is practical to restore the root of ‘axis’ for Grice’s value (validum, optimum), it is not easy to find a grecianism for the absolutum absolute. Lewis and Short have “absolvere,” which they render as ‘to loosen from, to make loose, set free, detach, untie (usu. trop., the fig. being derived from fetters, qs. a vinculis solvere, like “vinculis exsolvere,” Plaut. Truc. 3, 4, 10). So that makes sense. Lewis and Short also have “absolutum,” which they render as“absolute, unrestricted, unconditional,” – as in Cicero: “hoc mihi videor videre, esse quasdam cum adjunctione necessitudines, quasdam simplices et absolutas” (Inv. 2, 57, 170). Grice repatedly uses the plural ‘abosolutes,’ and occasionally the singular. Obviously, Grice has in mind the absolute-relative distinction, not wanting to be seen as relativist, unless it is a constructionist relativist. Grice refers to Bradley in ‘Prolegomena,’ and has an essay on the ‘absolutes.’ It is all back to when German philosopher F. Schiller, of Corpus, publishes “Mind!” Its frontispiece is a portrait of the absolute, “very much like the Bellman’s completely blank map in The hunting of the snark.” The absolutum is the sum of all being, an emblem of idealism. Idealism dominates Oxford for part of Grice’s career. The realist mission, headed by Wilson, is to clean up philosophy’s act Bradley’s Appearance and reality, mirrors the point of the snark. Bradley uses the example of a lump of sugar. It all begins to crumble, In Oxonian parlance, the absolute is a boo-jum, you see. Bradley is clear here, to irritate Ayer: the absolutum is, put simply, a higher unity, pure spirit. “It can never and it enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress.” Especially at Corpus, tutees are aware of Hartmann’s absolutum. Barnes thinks he can destroy with his emotivism. Hartmann, otherwise a naturalist, is claims that this or that value exists, not in the realm (Reich) of nature, but as an ideal essence of a thing, but in a realm which is not less, but more real than nature. For Hartmann, if a value exists, it is not relative, but absolute, objective, and rational, and so is a value judgment. Like Grice, for Hartmann, the relativity dissolves upon conceiving and constructing a value as an absolutum, not a relativum. The essence of a thing need not reduce to a contingence. To conceive the essence of a table is to conceive what the métier of a table. Like Hartmann, Grice is very ‘systematik’ axiologist, and uses ‘relative’ variously. Already in the Oxford Philosophical Society, Grice conceives of an utterer’s meaning and his communicatum is notoriously relative. It is an act of communication relative to an agent. For Grice, there is hardly a realm of un-constructed reality, so his construction of value as an absolutum comes as no surprise. Grice is especially irritated by Julie Andrews in Noël Coward’s “Relative values” and this Oxonian cavalier attitude he perceives in Barnes and Hare, a pinko simplistic attitude against any absolute. Unlike Hartmann, Grice adopts not so much a neo-Kantian as an Ariskantian tenet. The ratiocinative part of the soul of a personal being is designated the proper judge in the power structure of the soul. Whatever is relative to this particular creature successfully attains, ipso facto, absolute value. Refs.: For a good overview of emotivism in Oxford v. Urmson’s The emotive theory of ethics. Grice, “Values, morals, absolutes, and the metaphysical,” The H. P. Grice Papers, Series V (Topical), c 9-f. 24, BANC MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

abstractum: In an emissor draws a skull to communicate that there is danger, the addressee comes to think that there is danger, in the air. Let’s formalise that proposition as “The air is dangerous.” Is that abstract? It is: it involves two predicates which may be said to denote two abstracta: the property of being air, and the property of being dangerous. So abstracta are unavoidable in a communicatum, that reaches the sophistication of requiring a ‘that’-clause.  The usual phrase in Grice is ‘abstract’ as adjective and applied to ‘entity’ as anything troublesome to nominalism. At Oxford, Grice belongs to the class for members whose class have no members. If class C and class C have the same members, they are the same. A class xx is a set just in case there is a class yy such that x∈yx∈y. A class which is not a set is an improper, not a proper class, or a well-ordered one, as Burali-Forti puts it in ‘Sulle classi ben ordinate.’ Grice reads Cantor's essay and finds an antinomy on the third page. He mmediately writes his uncle “I am reading Cantor and find an antinomy.” The antinomy is obvious and concerns the class of all classes that are not members of themselves. This obviously leads to a pragmatic contradiction, to echo Moore, since this class must be and not be a member of itself and not a member of itself. Grice had access to the Correspondence of Zermelo and re-wrote the antinomy.Which leads Grice to Austin. For Austin thinks he can lead a class, and that Saturday morning is a good time for a class of members whose classes have no members, almost an insult. Grice is hardly attached to canonicals, not even first-order predicate logic with identity and class theory. Grice sees extensionalism asa a position imbued with the spirit of nominalism yet dear to the philosopher particularly impressed by the power of class theory. But Grice is having in mind the concretum-abstractum distinction, and as an Aristotelian, he wants to defend a category as an abstractum or universalium. Lewis and Short have ‘concrescere,’ rendered as ‘to grow together; hence with the prevailing idea of uniting, and generally of soft or liquid substances which thicken; to harden, condense, curdle, stiffen, congeal, etc. (very freq., and class. in prose and poetry).’ For ‘abstractum,’ they have ‘abstrăhere, which they render as ‘to draw away from a place or person, to drag or pull away.’ The ability to see a horse (hippos) without seeing horseness (hippotes), as Plato remarks, is a matter of stupidity. Yet, perhaps bue to the commentary by his editors, Grice feels defensive about proposition. Expanding on an essay on the propositional complexum,’ the idea is that if we construct a complexum step by step, in class-theoretical terms, one may not committed to an ‘abstract entity.’ But how unabstract is class theory? Grice hardly attaches to the canonicals of first-order predicate calculus with identity together with class theory. An item i is a universalium and 'abstractum' iff i fails to occupy a region in space and time. This raises a few questions. It is conceivable that an items that is standardly regarded as an 'abstractum' may nonetheless occupy a volumes of space and time.  The school of latter-day nominalism is for ever criticised at Oxford, and Grice is no exception. The topic of the abstractum was already present in Grice’s previous generation, as in the essay by Ryle on the systematically misleading expression, and the category reprinted in Flew. For it to be, a particular concretum individuum or prima substantia has to be something, which is what an abstractum universaium provides. A universal is part of the ‘essentia’ of the particular. Ariskants motivation for for coining “to katholou” is doxastic. Aristotle claims that to have a ‘doxa’ requires there to be an abstract universalium, not apart from (“para”), but holding of (“kata”) a concretum individuum. Within the “this” (“tode”) there is an aspect of “something” (“ti.”). Aristotle uses the “hêi” (“qua”) locution, which plays a crucial role in perceiving. Ariskant’s remark that a particular horse is always a horse (with a species and a genus) may strike the non-philosopher as trivial. Grice strongly denies that its triviality is unenlightening, and he loves to quote from Plato. Liddell and Scott have “ἱππότης,” rendered as “horse-nature, the concept of horse,” Antisth. et Pl. ap. Simp.in Cat. 208.30,32, Sch. Arist Id.p.167F. Then there is the ‘commensurate universal,’ the major premise is a universal proposition. Grice provides a logical construction of such lexemes as “abstractum” and “universalium,” and “concretum” and “individuum,” or “atomon” in terms of two relations, “izzing” and “hazzing.” x is an individuum or atomon iff nothing other than x izzes x. Austin is Austin, and Strawson is Strawson. Now, x is a primum individuum, proton atomon, or prima substantia, iff x is an individuum, and nothing hazzes x.  One needs to distinguish between a singular individuum and a particular (“to kathekaston,” particulare) simpliciter. Short and Lewis have “partĭcŭlāris, e, adj.” which they render, unhelpfully, as “particular,” but also as “of or concerning a part, partial, particular.” “Propositiones aliae universales, aliae particulares, ADogm. Plat. 3, p. 35, 34:  partĭcŭlārĭter is particularly, ADogm. Plat. 3, p. 33, 32; opp. “generaliter,” Firm. Math. 1, 5 fin.; opp. “universaliter,” Aug. Retract. 1, 5 fin. Cf. Strawson, “Particular and general,” crediting Grice twice; the second time about a fine point of denotatum: ‘the tallest man that ever lived, lives, or will live.” To define a ‘particular,’ you need to introduce, as Ariskant does, the idea of predication. (∀x)(x is an individuum)≡◻(∀y)(y izzes x)⊃(x izzes y). (∀x)(x izz a particulare(≡◻(∀y)(x izzes predicable of y)⊃(x izzes y Λ y izzes x).  Once we have defined a ‘particular,’ we can go and define a ‘singulare,’ a ‘tode ti,’ a ‘this what.” (∀x)(x izzes singulare)⊃(x izzes an individuum). There’s further implicate to come. (∀x)(x izzes a particulare)⊃(x izzes an individuum)).  The concern by Grice with the abstractum as a “universalium in re” can be traced back to his reading of Aristotle’s Categoriæ, for his Lit. Hum., and later with Austin and Strawson. Anything but a ‘prima substantia,’ ‒ viz. essence, accident, attribute, etc.  ‒ may be said to belong in the realm of the abstractum or universalium qua predicable. As such, an abstractum and univeralium is not a spatio-temporal continuant. However, a category shift or ‘subjectification,’ by Grice allows a universalium as subject. The topic is approached formally by means of the notion of order. First-order predicate calculus ranges over this or that spatio-temporal continuant individual, in Strawson’s use of the term. A higher-order predicate calculus ranges over this or that abstractum, a feature, and beyond. An abstractum universalium is only referred to in a second-order predicate calculus. This is Grice’s attempt to approach Aristkant in pragmatic key. In his exploration of the abstractum, Grice is challenging extensionalism, so fashionable in the New World within The School of Latter-Day Nominalists. Grice is careful here since he is well aware that Bennett has called him a meaning-nominalist. Refs.: For pre-play group reflections see Ryle’s Categories and Systematically misleading expressions. Explorations by other members of Grice’s playgroup are Strawson, ‘Particular and general’ and Warnock, ‘Metaphysics in logic,’ The main work by Grice at Oxford on the ‘abstractum’ is with Austin (f. 15) and later with Strawson (f.23). Grice, “Aristotle’s Categoriae,” The H. P. Grice Papers, S. II, c. 6-f. 15 and c. 6, f. 23, BANC MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft Library, The University of California, Berkeley.

acceptabilitas: Grice generalizes his desirability and credibility functions into a single acceptability. Acceptability has obviously degrees. Grice is thinking of ‘scales’ alla: must, optimal acceptability (for both modalities), should (medium acceptability), and ought (defeasible acceptability). He develops the views in The John Locke lectures, having introduced ‘accept,’ in his BA lecture on ‘Intention and Uncertainty.’ In fact, much as in “Causal Theory” he has an excursus on ‘Implication,’ here he has, also in italics, an excursus on “acceptance.” It seems that a degree of analogy between intending and believing has to be admitted; likewise the presence of a factual commitment in the case of an expression of intention. We can now use the term ‘acceptance’ to express a generic concept applying both to cases of intention and to cases of belief. He who intends to do A and he who believes that he will do A can both be said to accept (or to accept it as being the case) that he will do A. We could now attempt to renovate the three-pronged analysis discussed in Section I, replacing references in that analysis to being sure or certain that one will do A by references to accepting that one will do A. We might reasonably hope thereby to escape the objections raised in Section I, since these objections seemingly centred on special features of the notion of certainty which would NOT attach to the generic notion of acceptance. Hope that the renovated analysis will enable us to meet the sceptic will not immediately be realised, for the sceptic can still as (a) why some cases of acceptance should be specially dispensed from the need for evidential backing, and (b) if certain cases are exempt from evidential justification but not from justification, what sort of justification is here required. Some progress might be achieved by adopting a different analysis of intention in terms of acceptance. We might suggest that ‘Grice intends to go to Harborne’ is very roughly equivalent to the conjunction of ‘Grice accepts-1 that he will go to Harborne’ and ‘Grice accepts-2 that his going to Harborne will result from the effect of his acceptance-1 that he will go to Harborne. The idea is that when a case of acceptance is also a case of belief, the accepter does NOT regard his acceptance as contributing towards the realisation of the state of affairs the future the existence of which he accepts; whereas when a case of acceptance is not a case of belief but a case of intention, he does regard the acceptance as so contributing. Such an analysis clearly enables us to deal with the sceptic with regard to this question (a), viz. why some cases of acceptance (those which are cases of intention) should be specially exempt from the need of evidential backing. For if my going to Harborne is to depend causally on my acceptance that I shall-c go, the possession of satisfactory evidence that I shall-c go will involve possession of the information that I accept that I shall-c go. Obviously, then, I cannot (though others can) come to accept that I shall-c go on the basis of satisfactory evidence, for to have such evidence I should have already to have accepted that I shall-c go. I cannot decide whether or not to accept-1 that I shall-c go on the strength of evidence which includes as a datum that I do accept-1 that I shall-c go. Grice grants that we are still unable to deal with the sceptic as regards question (b), viz. what sort of justification is available for those cases of acceptance which require non-evidential justification even though they involve a factual commitment. Though it is clear that, on this analysis, one must not expect the intender to rely on evidence for his statements of what he will in fact do, we have not provided any account of the nature of the non-evidential considerations which may be adduced to justify such a statement, nor (a fortiori) of the reasons why such considerations might legitimately thought to succeed in justifying such a statement. Refs.: Grice, “Intention and uncertainty,” The British Academy, and BANC, MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft Library.

acceptum: As a meta-ethicist, like Hare, Grice is interested in providing criteria for acceptability. He proposes three formal universalizability, conceptual universalizability, and applicational universalizability. This is Grice’s Golden Rule, which is Biblical in nature. Grice needs a past participle for a ‘that’-clause of something ‘thought’. He has ‘creditum’ for what is believed, and ‘desideratum’ for what is desired. So he uses ‘acceptum’ for what is accepted, a neutral form to cover both the desideratum and the creditum. Short and Lewis have ‘accipio,’ f. ‘capio.’ Grice uses the abbreviation “Acc” for this. As he puts it in the Locke lectures: "An idea I want to explore is that we represent the sentences ‘Smith should be recovering his health by now’ and ‘Smith should join the cricket club’ as having the following structures. First, a common "rationality" operator 'Acc', to be heard as "it is reasonable that", "it is acceptABLE that", "it ought to be that", "it should be that", or in some other similar way.Next, one or other of two mode operators, which in the case of the first are to be written as '⊢' and in the case of the second are to be written as '!.’ Finally a 'radical', to be represented by 'r' or some other lower-case letter. The structure for the second is ‘Acc + ⊢ + r. For the second, ‘Acc + ! + r,’ with each symbol falling within the scope of its predecessor. Grice is not a psychologist, but he speaks of the ‘soul.’ He was a philosopher engaged in philosophical psychology. The psychological theory which Grice envisages would be deficient as a theory to explain behaviour if it did not contain provision for interests in the ascription of psychological states otherwise than as tools for explaining and predicting behaviour, interests e. g. on the part of one creature to be able to ascribe these rather than those psychological states to another creature because of a concern for the other creature. Within such a theory it should be possible to derive strong motivations on the part of the creatures Subjects to the theory against the abandonment of the central concepts of the theory and so of the theory itself, motivations which the creatures would or should regard as justified.  Indeed, only from within the framework of such a theory, I think, can matters of evaluation, and so, of the evaluation of modes of explanation, be raised at all. If I conjecture aright, then, the entrenched system contains the materials needed to justify its own entrenchment; whereas no rival system contains a basis for the justification of anything at all. We should recall that the first rendering that Liddell and Scott give for “ψυχή” is “life;” the tripartite division of “ψ., οἱ δὲ περὶ Πλάτωνα καὶ Ἀρχύτας καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ Πυθαγόρειοι τὴν ψ. τριμερῆ ἀποφαίνονται, διαιροῦντες εἰς λογισμὸν καὶ θυμὸν καὶ ἐπιθυμίαν,” Pl.R.439e sqq.; in Arist. “ἡ ψ. τούτοις ὥρισται, θρεπτικῷ, αἰσθητικῷ, διανοητικῷ, κινήσει: πότερον δὲ τοὔτων ἕκαστόν ἐστι ψ. ἢ ψυχῆς μόριον;” de An.413b11, cf. PA641b4; “ἡ θρεπτικὴ ψ.” Id.de An.434a22, al.; And Aristotle also has Grice’s favourite, ‘psychic,’ ψυχικός , ή, όν, “of the soul or life, spiritual, opp. “σωματικός, ἡδοναί” Arist.EN1117b28. The compound “psichiologia” is first used in "Psichiologia de ratione animae humanae," (in Bozicevic-Natalis, Vita Marci Maruli Spalatensis). A footnote in “Method,” repr. in “Conception” dates Grice’s lectures at Princeton. Grice is forever grateful to Carnap for having coined ‘pirot,’ or having thought to have coined. Apparently, someone had used the expression before him to mean some sort of exotic fish. He starts by listing this or that a focal problem. The first problem is circularity. He refers to the dispositional behaviouristic analysis by Ryle. The second focal problem is the alleged analytic status of a psychological law. One problem concerns some respect for Grice’s own privileged access to this or that state and this or that avowal of this or that state being incorrigible. The fourth problem concerns the law-selection. He refers to pessimism. He talks of folk-science. D and C are is each predicate-constant in some law L in some psychological theory θ. This or that instantiable of D or C may well be a set or a property or neither. Grices way of Ramseyified naming: There is just one predicate D, such that nomological generalization L introducing D via implicit definition in theory θ obtains. Uniqueness is essential since D is assigned to a names for a particular instantiable (One can dispense with uniqueness by way of Ramseyified description discussed under ‘ramseyified description.’) Grice trusts he is not overstretching Ramsey’s original intention. He applies Ramsey-naming and Ramsey-describing to pain. He who hollers is in pain. Or rather, He who is in pain hollers. (Sufficient but not necessary). He rejects disjunctional physicalism on it sounding harsh, as Berkeley puts it, to say that Smiths brains being in such and such a state is a case of, say, judging something to be true on insufficient evidence. He criticises the body-soul identity thesis on dismissing =s main purpose, to license predicate transfers. Grice wasnt sure what his presidential address to the American Philosophical Association will be about. He chose the banal (i.e. the ordinary-language counterpart of something like a need we ascribe to a squirrel to gobble nuts) and the bizarre: the philosophers construction of need and other psychological, now theoretical terms. In the proceedings, Grice creates the discipline of Pology. He cares to mention philosophers Aristotle, Lewis, Myro, Witters, Ramsey, Ryle, and a few others. The essay became popular when, of all people, Block, cited it as a programme in functionalism, which it is Grices method in functionalist philosophical psychology. Introduces Pology as a creature-construction discipline. Repr. in “Conception,” it reached a wider audience. The essay is highly subdivided, and covers a lot of ground. Grice starts by noting that, contra Ryle, he wants to see psychological predicates as theoretical concepts. The kind of theory he is having in mind is folksy. The first creature he introduces to apply his method is Toby, a squarrel, that is a reconstructed squirrel. Grice gives some principles of Pirotology. Maxims of rational behaviour compound to form what he calls an immanuel, of which The Conversational Immanuel is a part. Grice concludes with a warning against the Devil of Scientism, but acknowledges perhaps he was giving much too credit to Myros influence on this! “Method” in “Conception,” philosophical psychology, Pirotology. The Immanuel section is perhaps the most important from the point of view of conversation as rational cooperation. For he identifies three types of generality: formal, applicational, and content-based. Also, he allows for there being different types of imannuels. Surely one should be the conversational immanuel. Ryle would say that one can have a manual, yet now know how to use it! And theres also the Witters-type problem. How do we say that the conversationalist is following the immanuel? Perhaps the statement is too strong – cf. following a rule – and Grices problems with resultant and basic procedures, and how the former derive from the latter! This connects with Chomsky, and in general with Grices antipathy towards constitutive rules! In “Uncertainty,” Grice warns that his interpretation of Prichards willing that as a state should not preclude a physicalist analysis, but in Method it is all against physicalism.  In Method, from the mundane to the recondite, he is playful enough to say that primacy is no big deal, and that, if properly motivated, he might give a reductive analysis of the buletic in terms of the doxastic. But his reductive analysis of the doxastic in terms of the buletic runs as follows: P judges that p iff P wills as follows: given any situation in which P wills some end E and here are two non-empty classes K₁ and K₂ of action types, such that: the performance by P of an action-type belonging to K₁ realises E₁ just in case p obtains, and the performance by the P of an action type belonging to of K₂ will realise E just in case p does not obtain, and here is no third non-empty class K₃ of action types such that the performance by the P of an action type belonging to  will realise E whether p is true or p is false, in such situation, the P is to will that the P performs some action type belonging to K₁. Creature construction allows for an account of freedom that will metaphysically justify absolute value. Frankfurt has become famous for his second-order and higher-order desires. Grice is exploring similar grounds in what comes out as his “Method” (originally APA presidential address, now repr. in “Conception”). Refs.: The obvious source is his “Method,” repr. in “Conception,” but the keyword: “philosophical psychology” is useful in the Grice papers. There is a specific essay on the power structure of the soul, The H. P. Grice Collection, BANC.

accidentia. If there is accidentia, there is ‘essentia.’ If the Grecians felt like using the prefix ‘syn-‘ for this, why didn’t the Romans use the affix ‘cum-’? There are two: coincidentia, and concomitantia. For Grice, even English is vague here – to the point like he felt that ‘have,’ as in ‘have a property’ seems more of a proper translation of Aristotle’s ‘accidentia.’ Anything else falls under the ‘izz,’ not the ‘hazz.’ Because if the property is not accidental, the subject-item would just cease to exist, so the essential property is something the subject item IZZ, not HAZZ. One philosophical mistake: what is essential is not also accidental. Grice follows Kripke in the account of existence and essence. If Grice’s essence is his rational nature, if Grice becomes irrational, he ceases to exist. Not so for any property that Grice has which is NOT essential. An essential property is the first predicable, in that it is not one of this or that genus that is redundant. So Grice applies ‘accidental,’ like ‘essential’ to ‘attribute,’ and to attribute is to predicate. An essential attribute is manifested by an essential predicate. A non-essential predicate is an accidental attribute. There is the ‘idea’ of the ‘proprium,’ idion, with which Grice has to struggle a little. For what is the implicatum of a ‘proprium’ ascripition? “Man is a laughing animal.” Why would someone say such an idiocy in the first place?!

ackrillism – after J. L. Ackrill, London-born, Oxford-educated tutee of Grice’s. Grice cites him in “Some reflections on ends and happiness.” The reference is to Ackrill’s exploration on Aristotle on happiness. Ackrill was Grice’s tutee at St. John’s where he read, as he should, for the Lit. Hum. (Phil.). Grice instilled on him a love for Aristotle, which had been instilled on Grice by Scots philosopher Hardie, Grice’s tutee at THE place to study Lit. Hum., Corpus. Grice regretted that Ackrill had to *translate* Aristotle. “Of course at Clifton and Corpus, Hardie never asked me so!” Grice thought that Aristotle was almost being ‘murdered,’ literally, by Ackrill. That’s why Grice would always quote Aristotle in the Grecian vernacular. An “ackrillism,” then, as Grice used it, is a way to turn Aristotle from one vernacular to another, “usually with an Ackrillian effect.”

additum: f. addo , dĭdi, dĭtum, 3, v. a. 2. do (addues for addideris, Paul. ex Fest. p. 27 Müll.),addition. Strawson Wiggins p. 520. The utterer implies something more or different from what he explicitly conveys. Cfr. Disimplicatum, ‘less’ under ‘different from’ How seriously are we taking the ‘more.’ Not used by Grice. They seem cross-categorial. If emissor draws a skull and then a cross he means that there is danger and death in the offing. He crosses the cross, so it means death is avoidable. Urmson says that Warnock went to bed and took off his boots. He implicates in that order. So he means MORE than the ‘ampersand.” The “and” is expanded into “and then.” But in not every case things are so easy that it’s a matter of adding stuff. Cf. summatum, conjunctum.

additive implicature: By uttering ‘and,’ Russell means the Boolean adition. Whitehead means ‘and then’. Whithead’s implicatum is ADDITIVE, as opposed to diaphoron. Grice considers the conceptual possibilities here: One may explicitly convey that p, and implicitly convey q, where q ADDS to p (e. g. ‘and’ implicates ‘and then’). Sometimes it does not, “He is a fine fine,” (or a ‘nice fellow,’ Lecture IV) implying, “He is a scoundrel.” Sometimes it has nothing to do with it, “The weather has been nice” implying, “you committed a gaffe.” With disimplicatum, you implicate LESS than you explicitly convey. When did you last see your father? “Yesterday night, in my drams.” Grice sums this up with the phrase, “more or other.” By explicitly conveying that p, the emissor implicates MORE OR OTHER than he explicitly conveys.

agitation: a Byzantine feeling is a Ryleian agitation. If Grice were to advance the not wholly plausible thesis that ‘to feel Byzantine’ is just to have a an anti-rylean agitation which is caused by the thought that Grice is or might *be* Byzantine, it would surely be ridiculous to criticise Grice on the grounds that Grice saddles himself with an ontological commitment to feelings, or to modes of feeling. And why? Well, because, alla Parsons, if a quantifier is covertly involved at all, it will only be a universal quantifier which in such a case as this is more than adequately handled by a substitutional account of quantification. Grice’s situation vis-a-vis the ‘proposition’ is in no way different. In the idiolect of Ryle, “a serious student of Grecian philosophy,” as Grice puts it, ‘emotion’ designates at least three or four different kinds of things, which Ryle calls an ‘inclination, or ‘motive,’ a ‘mood’, an ‘agitation,’ or a ‘commotion,’ and a ‘feeling.’ An inclination or a mood, including an agitation, is not occurrences and doest not therefore take place either publicly or privately. It is a propensity, not an act or state. An inclination is, however, a propensity of this or that kind, and the kind is important. A feeling, on the other hand, IS an occurrence, but the place that mention of it should take in a description of human behaviour is very different from that which the standard theories accord to it. A susceptibility to a specific agitation is on the same general footing with an inclination, viz. that each is a general propensity and not an occurrence. An agitation is not a motive. But an agitation does presuppose a motive, or rather an agitataion presupposes a behaviour trend of which a motive is for us the most interesting sort. There is however a matter of expression which is the source of some confusion, even among Oxonian Wilde readers, and that did confuse philosophical psychologists of the ability of G. F. Stout. An expression may signify both an inclination and an agitation. But an expression may signify anything but an agitations. Again, some other expression may signify anything but an inclination. An expression like ‘uneasy’, ‘anxious’, ‘distressed’, ‘excited’, ‘startled’ always signifies an agitations. An expression like ‘fond of fishing’, ‘keen on gardening’, ‘bent on becoming a bishop’ never signifies an agitation. But an expression like ‘love’, ‘want’, ‘desire’, ‘proud’, ‘eager,’ or many others, stands sometimes for a simple inclination and sometimes for an agitations which is resultant upon the inclinations and interferences with the exercise of it. Thus ‘hungry’ for ‘having a good appetite’ means roughly ‘is eating or would eat heartily and without sauces, etc..’ This is different from ‘hungry’ in which a person might be said to be ‘too hungry to concentrate on his work’. Hunger in this second expression is a distress, and requires for its existence the conjunction of an appetite with the inability to eat. Similarly the way in which a boy is proud of his school is different from the way in which he is speechless with pride on being unexpectedly given a place in a school team. To remove a possible misapprehension, it must be pointed out that an agitation may be quite agreeable. A man may voluntarily subject himself to suspense, fatigue, uncertainty, perplexity, fear and surprise in such practices as angling, rowing, travelling, crossword puzzles, rock-climbing and joking. That a thing like a thrill, a rapture, a surprise, an amusement and an relief is an agitation is shown by the fact that we can say that someone is too much thrilled, amused or relieved to act, think or talk coherently. It is helpful to notice that, anyhow commonly, the expression which completes  ‘pang of . . .’ or ‘chill of . . .’ denotes an agitation. A feeling, such as a man feeling Byzantine, is intrinsically connected with an agitation. But a feeling, e. g. of a man who is feeling Byzantine, is not intrinsically connected with an inclination, save in so far as the inclination is a factor in the agitation. This is no novel psychological hypothesis; It is part of the logic of our descriptions of a feeling that a feeling (such as a man feeling Byzantine) is a sign of an agitation and is not an exercise of an inclination. A feeling, such as a man feeling Byzantine, in other words, is not a thing of which it makes sense to ask from what motive it issues. The same is true, for the same reasons, of any sign of any agitation. This point shows why we were right to suggest above that a feeling (like a man feeling Byzantine) does not belong directly to a simple inclination. An inclination is a certain sort of proneness or readiness to do certain sorts of things on purpose. These things are therefore describable as being done from that motive. They are the exercises of the disposition that we call ‘a motive’. A feeling (such as a man feeling Byzantine) is not from a motive and is therefore not among the possible exercise of such a propensiy. The widespread theory that a motive such as vanity, or affection, is in the first instance a disposition to experience certain specific feeling is therefore absurd. There may be, of course, a tendency to have a feeling, such as feeling Byzantine; being vertiginous and rheumatic are such tendencies. But we do not try to modify a tendency of these kinds by a sermon. What a feeling, such as being Byzantine, does causally belong to is the agitation. A feeling (such as feeling Byzantine) is a sign of an agitation in the same sort of way as a stomach-ache is a sign of indigestion. Roughly, we do not, as the prevalent theory holds, act purposively because we experience a feeling (such as feeling Byzantine); we experience a feeling (such as feeling Byzantine), as we wince and shudder, because we are inhibited from acting purposively. A sentimentalist is a man who indulges in this or that induced feeling (such as feeling Byzantine) without acknowledging the fictitiousness of his agitation. It seems to be generally supposed that ‘pleasure’ or ‘desire’ is always used to signify a feeling. And there certainly are feelings which can be described as a feeling of pleasure or desire. Some thrills, shocks, glows and ticklings are feelings of delight, surprise, relief and amusement; and things like a hankering, an itche, a gnawing and a yearning is a sign that something is both wanted and missed. But the transports, surprises, reliefs and distresses of which such a feeling is diagnosed, or mis-diagnosed, as a sign is not itself a feeling. It is an agitation or a mood, just as are the transports and distresses which a child betrays by his skips and his whimpers. Nostalgia is an agitation and one which can be called a ‘desire’; but it is not merely a feeling or series of feelings. There is the sense of ‘pleasure’ in which it is commonly replaced by such expressions as ‘delight’, ‘transport’, ‘rapture’, ‘exultation’ and ‘joy’. These are expressions of this or that mood signifying this or that agitation. There are two quite different usages of ‘emotion’, in which we explain people’s behaviour by reference to emotions. In the first usage of ‘emotion,’ we are referring to the motives or inclinations from which more or less intelligent actions are done. In a second usage we are referring to a mood, including the agitation or perturbation of which some aimless movement may be a sign. In neither of these usages are we asserting or implicating that the overt behaviour is the effect of a felt turbulence in the agent’s stream of consciousness. In a third usage of ‘emotion’, pangs and twinges are feelings or emotions, but they are not, save per accidens, things by reference to which we explain behaviour. They are things for which diagnoses are required, not things required for the diagnoses of behaviour. Since a convulsion of merriment is not the state of mind of the sober experimentalist, the enjoyment of a joke is also not an introspectible happening. States of mind such as these more or less violent agitations can be examined only in retrospect. Yet nothing disastrous follows from this restriction. We are not shorter of information about panic or amusement than about other states of mind. If retrospection can give us the data we need for our knowledge of some states of mind, there is no reason why it should not do so for all. And this is just what seems to be suggested by the popular phrase ‘to catch oneself doing so and so’. We catch, as we pursue and overtake, what is already running away from us. I catch myself daydreaming about a mountain walk after, perhaps very shortly after, I have begun the daydream; or I catch myself humming a particular air only when the first few notes have already been hummed. Retrospection, prompt or delayed, is a genuine process and one which is exempt from the troubles ensuing from the assumption of multiply divided attention; it is also exempt from the troubles ensuing from the assumption that violent agitations could be the objects of cool, contemporary scrutiny. One may be aware that he is whistling ‘Tipperary’ and not know that he is whistling it in order to give tte appearance of a sang-froid which he does not feel. Or, again, he may be aware that he is shamming sang-froid without knowing that the tremors which he is trying to hide derive from the agitation of a guilty conscience.

altogether nice girl: Or Grice’s altogether nice girl. Grice quotes from the music-hall ditty, “Every [sic] nice girl loves a sailor” (WoW:33). He uses this for his account of multiple quantification. There is a reading where the emissor may implicate that every nice girl is such that he loves one sailor, viz. Grice. But if the existential quantifier is not made dominant, the uniqueness is disimplicated. Grice admits that not every nominalist will be contented with the ‘metaphysical’ status of ‘the altogether nice girl.’ The ‘one-at-a-time sailor’ is her counterpart. And they inhabit the class of LOVE.

analytic a priori: R. A. Wollheim. London-born philosopher, BPhil Oxon, Balliol (under D. Marcus) and All Souls.  Examined by H. P. Grice. “What’s two times two?” Wollheim treasured that examination. It was in the context of a discussion of J. S. Mill and I. Kant, for whom addition and multiplication are ‘synthetic’ – a priori for Kant, a posteriori for Mill. Grice was trying to provide a counterexample to Mill’s thesis that all comes via deduction or induction.

animal: pirotese. Durrell’s Family Conversations. Durrelly’s family conversation. When H. P. Grice was presented with an ‘overview’ of his oeuvre for PGRICE (Grandy and Warner, 1986), he soon found out.  “There’s something missing.”  Indeed, there is a very infamous objection, Grice thought, which is not mentioned by ‘Richards,’ as he abbreviates Richard Grandy and Richard Warner’s majestically plural ‘overview,’ which seems to Grice to be one to which Grice must respond. And he shall! The objection Grice states as follows. One of the leading strands in Grice’s reductive analysis of the circumstances or scenario in which an emissor (E) communicates that p is that the scenario, call it “C,” is not to be regarded exclusively, “or even primarily,” as a ‘feature’ of an E that is using what philosophers of language (since Plato’s “Cratylus”) have been calling ‘language’ (glossa, la lingua latina, la lingua italiana, la langue française, the English tongue, de nederlands taal, die Deutsche Sprache, etc.). The emissum (e) may be an ‘utterance’ which is not ‘linguistic.’ Grice finds the issue crucial after discussing the topic with his colleague at Berkeley, Davidson. For Davidson reminds Grice: “[t]here is no such thing as a language, not if a language is anything like what many philosophers […] have supposed” (Davidson, 1986: 174). “I’m happy you say ‘many,’ Davidson,” Grice commented. Grice continues formulating what he obviously found to be an insidious, fastidious, objection. There are many instances of “NOTABLY NON-‘linguistic’” vehicles or devices of communication, within a communication-system, even a one-off system, which fulfil this or that communication-function. I am using ‘communication-function’ alla Grice (1961:138, repr. 1989:235). These vehicles or devices are mostly syntactically un-structured or amorphous – Grice’s favourite example being a ‘sort of hand-wave’ meaning that it is not the case that the emissor knows the route or that the emissor is about to leave his addressee (1967:VI, repr. 1989:126).  Sometimes, a device may exhibit at least “some rudimentary syntactic” structure – as Grice puts it, giving a nod to Morris’s tripartite semiotics -- in that we may perhaps distinguish and identify a ‘totum’ or complexum (say, Plato’s ‘logos’) from a pars or simplex (say, Plato’s ‘onoma’ and ‘rhema’). Grice’s intention-based reductive analysis of a communicatum, based on Aristotle, Locke, and Peirce, is designed, indeed its very raison d'être being, to allow for the possibility that a non-“linguistic,” and, further, indeed a non-“conventional” 'utterance,’ perhaps unrepeatable token, not even manifesting any degree of syntactic structure, but a block of an amorphous signal, be within the ‘repertoire’ of ‘procedures,’ perhaps unrepeatable ones, of this or that organism, or creature, or agent, even if not relying on any apparatus for communication of the kind that that we may label ‘linguistic’ or otherwise ‘conventional,’ will count as an emissor E ‘doing’ this or that ‘thing,’ thereby ‘communicating’ that p. To provide for this conceptual scenario, it is plainly necessary, Grice grants, that the key ingredient in any representation or conceptualization, or reductive analysis of ‘communicating,’ viz. intending that p, for Grice, should be a ‘state’ of the emissor’s “soul” (Grice is translating Grecian ψυχή the capacity for which does not require what we may label the ‘possession’ of, shall we say, ‘faculty,’ of what philosophers since Cratylus have been calling ‘γλῶσσα Ἑλληνίδα,’ ‘lingua latina,’ ‘lingua italiana,’ ‘langue française,’ ‘English tongue,’ ‘Nederlands taal,’ ‘die Deutsche Sprache.’ (Grice always congratulated Kant for never distinguishing between ‘die Deutsche Sprache’ and ‘Sprache’ as ‘eine Fakultät.’). Now a philosopher, relying on this or that neo-Prichardian reductive analysis of ‘intending that p,’ (Oxonian Grice will quote Oxonian if he can) may not be willing to allow the possibility of such, shall we grant, pre-linguistic intending that p, or non-linguistic intending that p. Surely, if the emissor E realizes that his addressee or recipient R does not ‘share’ say, what the Germans call ‘die Deutsche Sprache,” E may still communicate, by doing so-and-so, that such-and-such, viz. p. E may make this sort of hand wave communicating that E knows the route or that E is about to leave R. Against that objection, Grice surely wins the day. There’s nothing in Prichard account of ‘willing that p,’ itself a borrowing from William James (“I will that the distant table slides over the floor toward me. It does not.”) which is about ‘die Deutsche Sprache.’ But Grice hastens to declare that winning ‘the’ day may not be winning ‘all’ day. And that is because of Oxonian philosophy being what it is. Because, as far as Grice’s Oxonian explorations on communication go, in a succession of increasingly elaborate moves – ending with a a clause which closes the succession o-- designed to thwart this or that scenario, later deemed illegitimate, involving two rational agents where the emissor E relies on an ‘inference-element’ that it is not the case that E intends his recipient R will recogise – Grice is led to narrow the ‘intending’ the reductive analysis of ‘Emissor E communicates that p’ to C-intending.  Grice expects that whatever may be the case in general with regard to ‘intending,’ C-intending seems for some reason to Grice to be unsophisticatedly, viz. plainly, too sophisticated a ‘state’ of a soul (or ψυχή) to be found in an organism, ‘pirot,’ creature, that we may not want to deem ‘rational,’ or as the Germans would say, a creature that is plainly destitute of “Die Deutsche Sprache.” We seem to be needing a pirot to be “very intelligent, indeed rational.” (Who other than Grice would genially combine Locke with Carnap?). Some may regret, Grice admits, that his unavoidable rear-guard action just undermines the raison d'etre of his campaign. However, Grice goes on to provide an admittedly brief reply which will have to suffice under the circumstances. There is SOME limit for Oxonian debate! A full treatment that would satisfy Grice requires delving deep into crucial problems about the boundary between vicious and virtuous conceptual circularity. Which is promising. It is not something UNATTAINABLE a priori – and there is nothing wrong with leaving it for the morrow. It reduces to the philosopher trying to show himself virtuously circular, if not, like Lear, spherical. But why need the circle be virtuous. Well, as August would put it, unless a ‘circulus’ is not ‘virtuosus,’ one would hardly deem it a ‘circulus’ in the first place. A circle is virtuous if it is not a bad circle. One may even say, with The Carpenter, that, like a cabbage or a king, if a circle is not virtuous is not even a circle! (Grice 2001:35). In this case, to borrow from former Oxonian student S. R. Schiffer, we need the ‘virtuous circle’ because we are dealing with ‘a loop’ (Schiffer, 1988:v) -- a ‘conceptual loop,’ that is. Schiffer is not interested in ‘communicating;’ only ‘meaning,’ but his point can be easily transliterated. Schiffer is saying that ‘U,’ or utterer, our ‘E,’ means that p’ surely relies on ‘U intends that p,’ but mind the loop: ‘U intends that p’ may rely on ‘U means that p.’In Grice’s most generic, third-person terms, we have a creature, call it a pirot, P1, that, by doing thing D1, communicates that p. We are talking of Grice qua ethologist, who OBSERVES the scenario. As it happens, Grice’s favourite pirot is the parrot, and call Grice a snob, but his favourite parrot was Prince Maurice’s Parrot. Prince Maurice’s Parrot. Grice reads Locke, and adapts it slightly.  “Since I think I may be confident, that, whoever should see a CREATURE of his own shape or make, though it had no more reason all its life than a PARROT, would call him still A MAN; or whoever should hear a parrot discourse, reason, and philosophise, would call or think it nothing but a PARROT; and say, the one was A DULL IRRATIONAL MAN, and the other A VERY INTELLIGENT RATIONAL PARROT. “A relation we have in an author of great note, is sufficient to countenance the supposition of A RATIONAL PARROT. “The author’s words are as follows.”““I had a mind to know, from Prince Maurice's own mouth, the account of a common, but much credited story, that I had heard so often from many others, of a parrot he has, that speaks, and asks, and answers common questions, like A REASONABLE CREATURE.””““So that those of his train there generally conclude it to be witchery or possession; and one of his chaplains, would never from that time endure A PARROT, but says all PARROTS have a devil in them.””““I had heard many particulars of this story, and as severed by people hard to be discredited, which made me ask Prince Maurice what there is of it.””““Prince Maurice says, with his usual plainness and dryness in talk, there is something true, but a great deal false of what is reported.””““I desired to know of him what there was of the first. Prince Maurice tells me short and coldly, that he had HEARD of such A PARROT; and though he believes nothing of it, and it was a good way off, yet he had so much curiosity as to send for the parrot: that it was a very great parrot; and when the parrot comes first into the room where Prince Maurice is, with a great many men about him, the parrot says presently, ‘What a nice company is here.’”” ““ One of the men asks the parrot, ‘What thinkest thou that man is?,’ ostending his finger, and pointing to Prince Maurice.”“The parrot answers, ‘Some general -- or other.’ When the man brings the parrot close to Prince Maurice, Prince Maurice asks the parrot, ‘D'ou venez-vous?’”““The parrot answers, ‘De Marinnan.’ Then Prince Maurice goes on, and poses a second question to the parrot.””““‘A qui estes-vous?’ The Parrot answers: ‘A un Portugais.’”““Prince Maurice then asks a third question: ‘Que fais-tu la?’““The parrot answers: “Je garde les poulles.’ Prince Maurice smiles, which pleases the Parrot.”““Prince Maurice, violating a Griceian maxim, and being just informed that p, asks whether p. This is incidentally the Prince’s fourth question to the parrot – the first idiotic one. ‘Vous gardez les poulles?’”” ““The Parrot answers, ‘Oui, moi; et je scai bien faire.’ Then the parrott appeals to Peirce’s iconic system and makes the chuck four or five times that a man uses to make to chickens when a man calls them. I set down the words of this worthy dialogue in French, just as Prince Maurice said them to me. I ask Prince Maurice in what ‘tongue’ the parrot speaks.””““Prince Maurice says that the parrot speaks in the Brazilian tongue.””““ I ask Prince William whether he understands the Brazilian tongue.”” ““Prince Maurice says: No, but he has taken care to have TWO interpreters by him, the one a Dutchman that spoke the Brazilian tongue, and the other a Brazilian that spoke the Dutch tongue; that Prince Maurice asked them separately and privately, and both of them AGREED in telling Prince Maurice just the same thing that the parrot had said.””““I could not but tell this ODD story, because it is so much out of the way, and from the first hand, and what may pass for a good one; for I dare say Prince Maurice at least believed himself in all he told me, having ever passed for a very honest and pious man.””““I leave it to naturalists to reason, and to other men to believe, as they please upon it. However, it is not, perhaps, amiss to relieve or enliven a busy scene sometimes with such digressions, whether to the purpose or no.””Locke takes care “that the reader should have the story at large in the author's own words, because he seems to me not to have thought it incredible.”“For it cannot be imagined that so able a man as he, who had sufficiency enough to warrant all the testimonies he gives of himself, should take so much pains, in a place where it had nothing to do, to pin so close, not only on a man whom he mentions as his friend, but on a prince in whom he acknowledges very great honesty and piety, a story which, if he himself thought incredible, he could not but also think RIDICULOUS.”“Prince Maurice, it is plain, who vouches this story, and our author, who relates it from him, both of them call this talker A PARROT.”Locke asks “any one else who thinks such a story fit to be told, whether, if this PARROT, and all of its kind, had always talked, as we have a prince's word for it this one did,- whether, I say, they would not have passed for a race of RATIONAL ANIMALS; but yet, whether, for all that, they would have been allowed to be MEN, and not PARROTS?”“For I presume it is not the idea of A THINKING OR RATIONAL BEING alone that makes the idea of A MAN in most people's sense: but of A BODY, so and so shaped, joined to it: and if that be the idea of a MAN, the same successive body not shifted all at once, must, as well as THE SAME IMMATERIAL SPIRIT, go to the making of the same MAN.”So back to Grice’s pirotology, or Pirotologia. But first a precis Grice needs a dossier with a précis, so that he can insert the parrot’s conversational implicata – and Prince Maurice’s. PARROT: What a nice company is here.MAN (pointing to Prince Maurice): What thinkest thou that man is?PARROT: Some general -- or other. Grice’s gloss: The he parrot displays what Grice calls ‘up-take.’ The parrot recognizes the man’s c-intention. So far is ability to display uptake.PRINCE MAURICE: D'ou venez-vous?PARROT: De Marinnan.PRINCE MAURICE: A qui estes-vous?PARROT: A un Portugais.PRINCE MAURICE: Que fais-tu la?PARROT: Je garde les poulles.PRINCE MAURICE SMILES and flouts a Griceian maxim: Vous gardez les poulles?PARROT (losing patience, and grasping the Prince’s implicature that he doubts it): Oui, moi. Et je scai bien faire.Grice’s gloss: The Parrott appeals to Peirce’s iconic system and makes the chuck five times that a man uses to make to chickens when a man calls them.According to his “most recent speculations” about communication, Grice goes on in his ‘Reply to Richards,’ one should distinguish, as he engages in a bit of legalese, between two sides of the scenario under conceptual reduction, E communicates that p. One side is the ‘de facto’ side, a side which, as in name implies, in fact contains any communication-relevant feature which obtains or is present in the circumstances. But then there is a ‘de jure’ side to the scenario, viz. the nested C-intending which is only deemed to be present, as a vicious circle with good intentions may become a virtuous one. By the ‘nesting,’ Grice means the three sub-intentions, involved in a scenario where Emissor E communicates that (psi*) p, reducible to the Emissor E c-intending that A recognises that E psi-s that p.First, there is the ‘exhibitive’ intention, C1. Emissor E intends A to recognise that A psi-s that p.Second, there is the ‘reflexive’ intention, C2.Emissor intends that A recognise C1 by A recognising C2Third, there is the ‘openness’ intention, C3. There is no inference-element which is C-constitutive such that Emissor relies on it and yet does not intend A to recognise.The “de jure” side to the state of affairs involves self-reference But since this self-referential circle, a mere ‘loop,’ is meant to BLOCK an utterly vicious circle of a regressus ad infinitum (or ‘ho eis apeiron ekballon,’ if you must), the self-referential circle may well be deemed virtuous. The ‘de jure’ side to the scenario is trying to save state of affairs which in, in Grice’s words, “infinitely complex,” and such that no reasonable philosopher should expect to be realised ‘de facto.’ “In which case,” Grice remarks, “it seems to serve little, if any, purpose” to assume that this very INCONCEIVABLE ‘de facto’ instantiation of a ‘de jure’ ascription of an emissor communicating that p would only be detectable, as it isn’t, by appeal to something like ‘die Deutsche Sprache’!“At its most meagre,” to use Grice’s idiom, the ‘de facto’ side should consist, merely, in any pre-rational ‘counterpart’ to the state of affairs describable by having an Emissor E communicating that p,This might amount to no more than making a certain sort of utterance – our doing D1 -- in order thereby to get some recipient creature R, our second pirot, P2, to think or want some particular thing, our p. This meagre condition hardly involves reference to anything like ‘die Deutsche Sprache.’Let’s reformulate the condition.It’s just a pirot, at a ‘pre-rational’ level. The pirot does a thing T IN ORDER THEREBY to get some other pirot to think or do some particular thing. To echo Hare,Die Tur ist geschlossen, ja.Die Tur ist geschlossen, bitte.Grice continues as a corollary: “Maybe in a less straightforward instance of “Emissor E communicates that p” there is actually present the C-intention whose feasibility as an ‘intention’ suggests some ability to use ‘die Deutsche Sprache.’And if it does, Grice adds, it looks like anything like ‘die Deutsche Sprache’ ends up being an aid to the conceptualizing about communication, not communication itself! ReferencesDavidson, Donald 1986. A nice derangement of epitaphs, in Grandy and Warner, pp. 157-74.Durrell, My family and other animals. Grandy, R. E. and R. O. Warner. 1986. Philosophical grounds of rationality: intentions, categories, ends. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press. Grice, H. P. 1986. Reply to Richards, in Grandy and Warner, pp. 45-106Grice, H. P. 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. London and Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Grice, H. P. 2001. Aspects of reason. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press. Locke, J. 1690. An essay concerning humane [sic] understanding. Oxford: The Bodleian. Schiffer, S. R. 1988. Meaning. Oxford, at the Clarendon Press.

animatum: Grice was interested in what he called the ‘rational soul’ (psyche logike). In an act of communication, Emissor communicates that p, there is a psi involved, therefore a soul, therefore what the Romans called an ‘anima,’ and the Greeks called the ‘psyche.’ For surely there can be no psi-transmission without a psi. Grice loved to abbreviate this as the psi, since Lady Asquith, who was a soul, would not have desired any less from Grice. Grice, like Plato and Aristotle, holds a tripartite theory of the soul. Where, ‘part’ (Aristotelian ‘meros’) is taken very seriously. Anything thought. From ‘psyche,’ anima. Grice uses the symbol of the letter psi here which he renders as ‘animatum.’ Why Grice prefers ‘soul’ to mind. The immortality of a the chicken soul. By Shropshire. Shropshire claims that the immortality of the soul is proved by the fact that, if you cut off a chicken's head, the chicken will run round the yard for a quarter of an hour before dropping. Grice has an an 'expansion' of Shropshire's ingenious argument.If the soul is not dependent on the body, it is immortal. If the soul is dependent on the body, it is dependent on that part of the body in which it is located. If the soul is located in the body, it is located in the head. If the chicken's soul were located in its head, the chicken's soul would be destroyed if the head were rendered inoperative by removal from the body. The chicken runs round the yard after head-removal. It could do this only if animated, and controlled by its soul. So the chicken's soul is not located in, and not dependent on, the chicken's head. So the chicken's soul is not dependent on the chicken's body. So the chicken's soul is immortal. end p.11 If the chicken's soul is immortal, a fortiori the human soul is immortal. So the soul is immortal. The question I now ask myself is this: why is it that I should be quite prepared to believe that the Harvard students ascribed their expansion of Botvinnik's proof, or at least some part of it, to Botvinnik (as what he had in mind), whereas I have no inclination at all to ascribe any part of my expansion to Shropshire? Considerations which at once strike me as being likely to be relevant are: (1) that Botvinnik's proof without doubt contained more steps than Shropshire's claim; (2) that the expansion of Botvinnik's proof probably imported, as extra premisses, only propositions which are true, and indeed certain; whereas my expansion imports premisses which are false or dubious; (3) that Botvinnik was highly intelligent and an accomplished logician; whereas Shropshire was neither very intelligent nor very accomplished as a philosopher. No doubt these considerations are relevant, though one wonders whether one would be much readier to accord Shropshire's production the title of 'reasoning' if it had contained some further striking 'deductions', such as that since the soul is immortal moral principles have absolute validity; and one might also ask whether the effect of (3) does not nullify that of (2), since, if Shropshire was stupid, why should not one ascribe to him a reconstructed argument containing plainly unacceptable premisses? But, mainly, I would like some further light on the following question: if such considerations as those which I have just mentioned are relevant, why are they relevant? I should say a word about avowals. The following contention might be advanced. If you want to know whether someone R, who has produced what may be an incomplete piece of reasoning, has a particular completion in mind, the direct way to find out is to ask him. That would settle the matter. If, however, you are unable to ask him, then indirect methods will have to be used, which may well be indecisive. Indeterminacy springs merely from having to rely on indirect methods. I have two comments to make. First: it end p.12 is far from clear to what extent avowals do settle the matter. Anyone who has taught philosophy is familiar with the situation in which, under pressure to expand an argument they have advanced, students, particularly beginners, make statements which, one is inclined to say, misrepresent their position. This phenomenon is perhaps accounted for by my much more important second point: that avowals in this kind of context generally do not have the character which one might without reflection suppose them to have; they are not so much reportive as constructive. If I ask someone if he thinks that so-and-so is a consequence of such-and-such, what I shall receive will be primarily a defence of this supposition, not a report on what, historically, he had in mind in making it. We are in general much more interested in whether an inferential step is a good one to make than we are in what a particular person had in mind at the actual moment at which he made the step. One might perhaps see an analogy between avowals in this area and the specification of plans. If someone has propounded a plan for achieving a certain objective, and I ask him what he proposes to do in such-and-such a contingency, I expect him to do the best he can to specify for me a way of meeting that contingency, rather than to give a historically correct account of what thoughts he had been entertaining. This feature of what I might call inferential avowals is one for which we shall have to account.Let us take stock. The thesis which we proposed for examination has needed emendation twice, once in the face of the possibility of bad reasoning, and once to allow for informal and incomplete reasoning. The reformulation needed to accommodate the latter is proving difficult to reach. Let us take s and s′ to be sequences consisting of a set of premisses and a conclusion (or, perhaps it would be better to say, a set of propositions and a further proposition), or a sequence (sorites) of such sequences. (This is not fully accurate, but will serve.) Let us suppose that x has produced s (in speech or in thought). Let "formally cogent" mean "having true premisses, and being such that steps from premisses to conclusions are formally valid". (1) We cannot define "s is a piece of reasoning by x" as "x thinks s to be formally cogent", because if s is an incomplete piece of reasoning s is not, and could not reasonably be thought by x to be, formally cogent. end p.13 (2) We cannot define "s is a piece of reasoning by x" as "(∃s′) (s′ is an expansion of s and s′ is formally cogent)" because (a) it does not get in the idea that x thinks s′ formally cogent and (b) it would exclude bad reasoning. (3) We cannot define "s is a piece of reasoning by x" as "x thinks that (∃s′) (s′ is an expansion of s and s′ is formally cogent)", for this is too weak, and would allow as reasoning any case in which x believed (for whatever reason, or lack of reason) that an informal sequence had some formally cogent expansion or other. (Compare perhaps Shropshire.).” In Latin indeed, ‘animus’ and ‘anima’ make a world of a difference, as Shropshire well knows. Psyche transliterates as ‘anima’ only; ‘animus’ the Greeks never felt the need for. Of course a chicken is an animal, as in man. “Homo animalis rationalis.” Grice prefers ‘human,’ but sometimes he uses ‘animal,’ as opposed to ‘vegetal, sometimes, when considering stages of freedom. A stone (mineral) displays a ‘free’ fall, which is metabolical. And then, a vegetable is less free than an animal, which can move, and a non-human animal (that Grice calls ‘a beast’) is less free than man, who is a rational animal. Grice notes that back in the day, when the prince came from a hunt, “I brought some animals,” since these were ‘deer,’ ‘deer’ was taken as meaning ‘animal,’ when the implicatum was very much cancellable. The Anglo-Saxons soon dropped the ‘deer’ and adopted the Latinate ‘animal.’ They narrowed the use of ‘deer’ for the ‘cervus cervus.’ But not across the North Sea where the zoo is still called a ‘deer-garden.’ When Aelfric studied philosophy he once thought man was a rational deer.

apagoge: distinguished by Grice from both ‘epagoge,’ and his favoured ‘diagoge.’ A shifting of the basis of argument: hence of argument based on a probable or agreed assumption, Arist.APr.69a20, cf. Anon.in SE65.35; reduction, “ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀ.” reductio per impossibile, APr. 29b6; “ἡ ἀ. μετάβασίς ἐστιν ἀπ᾽ ἄλλου προβλήματος ἢ θεωρήματος ἐπ᾽ ἄλλο, οὗ γνωσθέντος ἢ πορισθέντος καὶ τὸ προκείμενον ἔσται καταφανές” Procl. in Euc.p.212F.; τῶν ἀπορουμένων διαγραμμάτων τὴν ἀ. ποιήσασθαι ib. p.213F. b. reduction of a disputant (cf. ἀπάγω v. 1c), “ἡ ἐπὶ τὸ ἄδηλον ἀ.” S.E.P.2.234.

aporia: cf. aporetic, cognate with porosity. No porosity, and you get an impasse. While aware of Baker’s and Deutsch’s treatment of the ‘aporia’ in Aristotle’s account of ‘philos,’ Grice explores ‘aporia’ in Plato in the Thrasymachus on ‘legal justice’ prior to ‘moral justice’ in Republic. in Dialectic, question for discussion, difficulty, puzzle, “ἀπορίᾳ σχόμενος” Pl.Prt.321c; ἀ. ἣν ἀπορεῖς ib.324d; “ἡ ἀ. ἰσότης ἐναντίων λογισμῶν” Arist. Top.145b1, al.; “ἔχει ἀπορίαν περί τινος” Id.Pol.1285b28; “αἱ μὲν οὖν ἀ. τοιαῦταί τινες συμβαίνουσιν” Id.EN1146b6; “οὐδεμίαν ποιήσει ἀ.” Id.Metaph.1085a27; ἀ. λύειν, διαλύειν, Id.MM 1201b1, Metaph.1062b31; “ἀπορίᾳ ἀπορίαν λύειν” D.S.1.37.Discussion with the Sophist Thrasymachus can only lead to aporia. And the more I trust you, the more I sink into an aporia of sorts. —Aha! roared Thrasymachus to everyone's surprise. There it is! Socratic aporia is back! Charge! neither Socrates' company nor Socrates himself gives any convincing answer. So, he says, finding himself in a real aporia, he visits Thrasymachus as well, and ... I argue that a combination of these means in form that I call “provocative-aporetic” better accounts for the means that Plato uses to exert a protreptic effect on readers. Aporia is a simultaneously intellectual and affective experience, and the way that readers choose to respond to aporia has a greater protreptic effect than either affective or intellectual means alone. When Socrates says he can 'transfer' the use of "just" to things related to the 'soul,' what kind of conversational game is that? Grice took Socrates's manoeuvre very seriously.Socrates relies on the tripartite theory of the soul. Plato, actually -- since Socrates is a drammatis persona! In "Philosophical Eschatology, Metaphysics, and Plato's Republic," H. P. Grice's purpose is to carry out a provocative-aporetic reading Book I Grice argues that it is a dispute between two ways of understanding 'just' which causes the aporia when Socrates tries to analyse 'just.' Although Socrates will not argue for the complexity and tripartition of the soul until Bk. IV, we can at least note the contrast with Thrasymachus' “idealize user” theory.For Socrates, agents are complex, and justice coordinates the parts of the agent.For Thrasymachus, agents are simple “users,” and justice is a tool for use. (2 - 3) Justice makes its possessor happy; the function (telos, metier) argument. To make the argument that justice is an excellence (virtus, arete) of soul (psyche) that makes its possessor happy, Socrates relies on a method for discovering the function (ἔργον, ergon, 352e1, cf. telos, metier, causa finalis) of any object whatsoever. Socrates begins by differentiating between an exclusive functions and an optimal function, so that we may discover the functions in different types of objects, i.e., natural and artificial objects. We can say an object performs some function (ergon) if one of the following conditions holds.If the object is the only one that can do the work in question, or If it is the object that does that work best.Socrates then provides examples from different part-whole complexes to make his point. The eye's exclusive function is to see, because no other organ is specialized so as to perform just that function. A horse's work is to carry riders into battle. Even though this might not be a horse's EXCLUSIVE function, it may be its “optimal” function in that the horse is best suited or designed by God to the task. Finally, the pruning knife is best for tending to vines, not because it cannot cut anything else, but because it is optimally suited for that task. Socrates' use of the pruning knife of as an example of a thing's function resembles a return to the technē model, since a craftsman must make the knife for a gardener to Socrates asks, “Would you define this as the function of a horse and of anything else, as that which someone does either through that thing alone, or best?” (...τοῦτο ἄν θείης καὶ ἵππου καὶ ἄλλου ὁτουοῦν ἔργον, ὅ ἄν ἤ μόνῳ ἐκείνῳ ποιῇ τις ἤ ἄριστα; 352e1-2) Thrasymachus agrees to this definition of function. 91 use.But his use of the eye — a bodily organ — should dissuade us from this view. One may use these examples to argue that Socrates is in fact offering a new method to investigate the nature of justice: 1) Find out what the functions of such objects are2) determine (by observation, experiment, or even thought experiment) cases where objects of such a kind perform their functions well and cases where they perform them poorly; and 3) finally find out the qualities that enable them to perform such functions well (and in the absence of which they perform poorly), and these are their virtues.A crucial difference between this method and technē model of justice lies in the interpretation that each assigns to the realm of human artifacts. Polemarchus and Thrasymachus both assume that the technē is unique as a form of knowledge for the power and control that it offers users. In Polemarchus' case, the technē of justice, “helping friends and harming enemies,” may be interpreted as a description of a method for gaining political power within a traditional framework of communal life, which assumes the oikos as the basic unit of power. Those families that help their friends and harm their enemies thrive. Thrasymachus, on the other hand, emphasizes the ways that technai grant users the power to exploit nature to further their own, distinctively individual ends. Thus, the shepherd exploits the sheep to make a livelihood for himself. Socrates' approach differs from these by re-casting “mastery” over nature as submission to norms that structure the natural world. For example, many factors contribute to making This points to a distinction Socrates draws in Book X between producers and users of artifacts. He uses the example of the blacksmith who makes a bridle and the horseman who uses the bridle to argue that production and use correspond to two gradations of knowledge (601c). The ultimate purpose of the example is to provide a metaphor — using the craft analogy — for identifying gradations of knowledge on a copy-original paradigm of the form-participant relation. the pruning knife the optimal tool for cutting vines: the shape of the human hand, the thickness and shape of the vines, and the metal of the blade. Likewise, in order for horses to optimally perform their “work,” they must be "healthy" and strong. The conditions that bring about their "health" and strength are not up to us, however."Control” only comes about through the recognition of natural norms. Thus technē is a type of knowledge that coordinates structures in nature.It is not an unlimited source of power. Socrates' inclusion of the human soul (psyche) among those things that have a function is the more controversial aspect of function argument.Socrates says that the functions (erga) of the soul (psyche) are “to engage in care-taking, ruling, and deliberation” and, later, simply that the ergon (or function) of the soul (or psyche) is “to live” (τὸ ζῆν, "to zen," 353d6). But the difficulty seems to be this: the functions of pruning knives, horses, and bodily organs are determined with respect to a limited and fairly unambiguous context that is already defined for them. But what is this context with respect to the soul (psyche) of a human individual? One answer might be that the social world — politics — provides the context that defines the soul's function, just as the needs of the human organism define the context in which the eye can perform a function. But here a challenger might reply that in aristocracies, oligarchies, and democracies, “care-taking, ruling, and deliberation” are utilized for different ends.In these contexts, individual souls might have different functions, according to the “needs” that these different regimes have. Alternatively, one might deny altogether that the human soul has a function: the distinctive feature of human beings might be their position “outside” of nature. Thus, even if Socrates' description of the soul's function is accurate, it is too general to be really informative.Socrates must offer more details for the function argument to be convincing. Nonetheless, the idea that justice is a condition that lets the soul perform its functions is a significant departure from the technē model of justice, and one that will remain throughout the argument of the Republic. […] τὸ ἐπιμελεῖσθαι καὶ ἄρχειν καὶ βουλεύεσθαι (353d3). As far as Bk. I is concerned, “justice” functions as a place-holder for that condition of the soul which permits the soul to perform its functions well. What that condition is, however, remains unknown.For this reason, Plato has Socrates concludes Bk. I by likening himself to a “glutton” (ὥσπερ οἱ λίχνοι, 354b1), who takes another dish before “moderately enjoying the previous” serving (πρὶν τοῦ προτέρου μετρίως ἀπολαύσαι, 354b2-3). For Socrates wants to know what effects the optimal condition of soul brings about before knowing what the condition itself is. Thus Bk. I concludes in "aporia," but not in a way that betrays the dialogue's lack of unity.The “separatist” thesis concerning Bk. I goes back to Hermann in "Geschichte und System der Platonischen Philosophie." One can argue on behalf of the “separatist” view as well. One can argue against the separatist thesis, even granting some evidence in favour of the separatist thesis. To the contrary, the "aporia" clearly foreshadows the argument that Socrates makes about the soul in Bk. IV, viz. that the soul (psyche) is a complex whole of parts -- an implicatum in the “justice is stronger” argument -- and that 'just' is the condition that allows this complex whole be integrated to an optimal degree. Thus, Bk. I does not conclude negatively, but rather provides the resources for going beyond the "technē" model of justice, which is the primary cause of Polemarchus's and Thrasymachus's encounter with "aporia" in Bk. I. Throughout conversation of "The Republic," Socrates does not really alter the argument he gives for justice in Bk. I, but rather states the same argument in a different way.  My gratitude to P. N. Moore. Refs: Wise guys and smart alecks in Republic 1 and 2; Proleptic composition in the Republic, or why Bk. 1 was never a separate dialogue, The Classical Quarterly; "Socrates: ironist and moral philosopher."

aretaic: sometimes used by Grice for ‘virtuosum’.

argumentum: “I thought I saw an argument, it turned to be some soap” (Dodgson). Term that Grice borrows from (but “never returned” to) Boethius, the Roman philosopher. Strictly, Grice is interested in the ‘arguer.’ Say Blackburn goes to Grice and, not knowing Grice speaks English, writes a skull. Blackburn intends Grice to think that there is danger, somewhere, even deadly danger. So there is arguing on Blackburn’s part. And there is INTENDED arguing on Blackburn’s recipient, Grice, as it happens. For Grice, the truth-value of “Blackburn communicates (to Grice) that there is danger” does not REQUIRE the uptake.” “Why, one must just as well require that Jones GETS his job to deem Smith having GIVEN it to him if that’s what he’s promised. The arguer is invoked in a self-psi-transmission. For he must think P, and he must think C, and he must think that P yields C. And this thought that C must be CAUSED by the fact that he thinks that P yields C. -- f. argŭo , ŭi, ūtum (ŭĭtum, hence arguiturus, Sall. Fragm. ap. Prisc. p. 882 P.), 3, v. a. cf. ἀργής, white; ἀργός, bright; Sanscr. árgunas, bright; ragatas, white; and rag, to shine (v. argentum and argilla); after the same analogy we have clarus, bright; and claro, to make bright, to make evident; and the Engl. clear, adj., and to clear = to make clear; v. Georg Curtius p. 171.  I. A.. In gen., to make clear, to show, prove, make known, declare, assert, μηνύειν: “arguo Eam me vidisse intus,” Plaut. Mil. 2, 3, 66: “non ex auditu arguo,” id. Bacch. 3, 3, 65: “M. Valerius Laevinus ... speculatores, non legatos, venisse arguebat,” Liv. 30, 23: “degeneres animos timor arguit,” Verg. A. 4, 13: “amantem et languor et silentium Arguit,” Hor. Epod. 11, 9; id. C. 1, 13, 7.—Pass., in a mid. signif.: “apparet virtus arguiturque malis,” makes itself known, Ov. Tr. 4, 3, 80: “laudibus arguitur vini vinosus Homerus,” betrays himself, Hor. Ep. 1, 19, 6.— B. Esp. a. With aliquem, to attempt to show something, in one's case, against him, to accuse, reprove, censure, charge with: Indicāsse est detulisse; “arguisse accusāsse et convicisse,” Dig. 50, 16, 197 (cf. Fest. p. 22: Argutum iri in discrimen vocari): tu delinquis, ego arguar pro malefactis? Enn. (as transl. of Eurip. Iphig. Aul. 384: Εἶτ̓ ἐγὼ δίκην δῶ σῶν κακῶν ὁ μὴ σφαλείς) ap. Rufin. § “37: servos ipsos neque accuso neque arguo neque purgo,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 41, 120: “Pergin, sceleste, intendere hanc arguere?” Plaut. Mil. 2, 4, 27; 2, 2, 32: “hae tabellae te arguunt,” id. Bacch. 4, 6, 10: “an hunc porro tactum sapor arguet oris?” Lucr. 4, 487: “quod adjeci, non ut arguerem, sed ne arguerer,” Vell. 2, 53, 4: “coram aliquem arguere,” Liv. 43, 5: “apud praefectum,” Tac. A. 14, 41: “(Deus) arguit te heri,” Vulg. Gen. 31, 42; ib. Lev. 19, 17; ib. 2 Tim. 4, 2; ib. Apoc. 3, 19 al.— b. With the cause of complaint in the gen.; abl. with or without de; with in with abl.; with acc.; with a clause as object; or with ut (cf. Ramsh. p. 326; Zumpt, § 446). (α). With gen.: “malorum facinorum,” Plaut. Ps. 2, 4, 56 (cf. infra, argutus, B. 2.): “aliquem probri, Stupri, dedecoris,” id. Am. 3, 2, 2: “viros mortuos summi sceleris,” Cic. Rab. Perd. 9, 26: “aliquem tanti facinoris,” id. Cael. 1: “criminis,” Tac. H. 1, 48: “furti me arguent,” Vulg. Gen. 30, 33; ib. Eccl. 11, 8: “repetundarum,” Tac. A. 3, 33: “occupandae rei publicae,” id. ib. 6, 10: “neglegentiae,” Suet. Caes. 53: “noxae,” id. Aug. 67: “veneni in se comparati,” id. Tib. 49: “socordiae,” id. Claud. 3: “mendacii,” id. Oth. 10: “timoris,” Verg. A. 11, 384: “sceleris arguemur,” Vulg. 4 Reg. 7, 9; ib. Act. 19, 40 al.— (β). With abl.: “te hoc crimine non arguo,” Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 18; Nep. Paus. 3 fin.— (γ). With de: “de eo crimine, quo de arguatur,” Cic. Inv 2, 11, 37: “de quibus quoniam verbo arguit, etc.,” id. Rosc. Am. 29 fin.: “Quis arguet me de peccato?” Vulg. Joan. 8, 46; 16, 8.— (δ). With in with abl. (eccl. Lat.): “non in sacrificiis tuis arguam te,” Vulg. Psa. 49, 8.—（ε) With acc.: quid undas Arguit et liquidam molem camposque natantīs? of what does he impeach the waves? etc., quid being here equivalent to cujus or de quo, Lucr. 6, 405 Munro.—（ζ) With an inf.-clause as object: “quae (mulier) me arguit Hanc domo ab se subripuisse,” Plaut. Men. 5, 2, 62; id. Mil. 2, 4, 36: “occidisse patrem Sex. Roscius arguitur,” Cic. Rosc. Am. 13, 37: “auctor illius injuriae fuisse arguebatur?” Cic. Verr. 2, 1, 33: “qui sibimet vim ferro intulisse arguebatur,” Suet. Claud. 16; id. Ner. 33; id. Galb. 7: “me Arguit incepto rerum accessisse labori,” Ov. M. 13, 297; 15, 504.—（η) With ut, as in Gr. ὡς (post-Aug. and rare), Suet. Ner. 7: “hunc ut dominum et tyrannum, illum ut proditorem arguentes,” as being master and tyrant, Just. 22, 3.— II. Transf. to the thing. 1. To accuse, censure, blame: “ea culpa, quam arguo,” Liv. 1, 28: “peccata coram omnibus argue,” Vulg. 1 Tim. 5, 20: “tribuni plebis dum arguunt in C. Caesare regni voluntatem,” Vell. 2, 68; Suet. Tit. 5 fin.: “taciturnitatem pudoremque quorumdam pro tristitiā et malignitate arguens,” id. Ner. 23; id. Caes. 75: “arguebat et perperam editos census,” he accused of giving a false statement of property, census, id. Calig. 38: “primusque animalia mensis Arguit imponi,” censured, taught that it was wrong, Ov. M. 15, 73: “ut non arguantur opera ejus,” Vulg. Joan. 3, 20.— 2. Trop., to denounce as false: “quod et ipsum Fenestella arguit,” Suet. Vit. Ter. p. 292 Roth.—With reference to the person, to refute, confute: “aliquem,” Suet. Calig. 8.—Hence, argūtus , a, um, P. a. A. Of physical objects, clear. 1. To the sight, bright, glancing, lively: “manus autem minus arguta, digitis subsequens verba, non exprimens,” not too much in motion, Cic. de Or. 3, 59, 220 (cf. id. Or. 18, 59: nullae argutiae digitorum, and Quint. 11, 3, 119-123): “manus inter agendum argutae admodum et gestuosae,” Gell. 1, 5, 2: “et oculi nimis arguti, quem ad modum animo affecti sumus, loquuntur,” Cic. Leg. 1, 9, 27: “ocelli,” Ov. Am. 3, 3, 9; 3, 2, 83: “argutum caput,” a head graceful in motion, Verg. G. 3, 80 (breve, Servius, but this idea is too prosaic): aures breves et argutae, ears that move quickly (not stiff, rigid), Pall. 4, 13, 2: “argutā in soleā,” in the neat sandal, Cat. 68, 72.— 2. a.. To the hearing, clear, penetrating, piercing, both of pleasant and disagreeable sounds, clear-sounding, sharp, noisy, rustling, whizzing, rattling, clashing, etc. (mostly poet.): linguae, Naev. ap. Non. p. 9, 24: “aves,” Prop. 1, 18, 30: “hirundo,” chirping, Verg. G. 1, 377: “olores,” tuneful, id. E. 9, 36: ilex, murmuring, rustling (as moved by the wind), id. ib. 7, 1: “nemus,” id. ib. 8, 22 al.—Hence, a poet. epithet of the musician and poet, clear-sounding, melodious: “Neaera,” Hor. C. 3, 14, 21: “poëtae,” id. Ep. 2, 2, 90: “fama est arguti Nemesis formosa Tibullus,” Mart. 8, 73, 7: forum, full of bustle or din, noisy, Ov. A.A. 1, 80: “serra,” grating, Verg. G. 1, 143: “pecten,” rattling, id. ib. 1, 294; id. A. 7, 14 (cf. in Gr. κερκὶς ἀοιδός, Aristoph. Ranae, v. 1316) al.—Hence, of rattling, prating, verbose discourse: “sine virtute argutum civem mihi habeam pro preaeficā, etc.,” Plaut. Truc. 2, 6, 14: “[Neque mendaciloquom neque adeo argutum magis],” id. Trin. 1, 2, 163 Ritschl.— b. Trop., of written communications, rattling, wordy, verbose: “obviam mihi litteras quam argutissimas de omnibus rebus crebro mittas,” Cic. Att. 6, 5: vereor, ne tibi nimium arguta haec sedulitas videatur, Cael. ap. Cic. Fam. 8, 1. —Transf. to omens, clear, distinct, conclusive, clearly indicative, etc.: “sunt qui vel argutissima haec exta esse dicant,” Cic. Div. 2, 12 fin.: “non tibi candidus argutum sternuit omen Amor?” Prop. 2, 3, 24.— 3. To the smell; sharp, pungent: “odor argutior,” Plin. 15, 3, 4, § 18.— 4. To the taste; sharp, keen, pungent: “sapor,” Pall. 3, 25, 4; 4, 10, 26.— B. Of mental qualities. 1. In a good sense, bright, acute, sagacious, witty: “quis illo (sc. Catone) acerbior in vituperando? in sententiis argutior?” Cic. Brut. 17, 65: “orator,” id. ib. 70, 247: “poëma facit ita festivum, ita concinnum, ita elegans, nihil ut fieri possit argutius,” id. Pis. 29; so, “dicta argutissima,” id. de Or. 2, 61, 250: “sententiae,” id. Opt. Gen. 2: “acumen,” Hor. A. P. 364: “arguto ficta dolore queri,” dexterously-feigned pain, Prop. 1, 18, 26 al.— 2. In a bad sense, sly, artful, cunning: “meretrix,” Hor. S. 1, 10, 40: calo. id. Ep. 1, 14, 42: “milites,” Veg. Mil. 3, 6.—As a pun: ecquid argutus est? is he cunning? Ch. Malorum facinorum saepissime (i.e. has been accused of), Plaut. Ps. 2, 4, 56 (v. supra, I. B. a.).—Hence, adv.: argūtē (only in the signif. of B.). a. Subtly, acutely: “respondere,” Cic. Cael. 8: “conicere,” id. Brut. 14, 53: “dicere,” id. Or. 28, 98.—Comp.: “dicere,” Cic. Brut. 11, 42.— Sup.: “de re argutissime disputare,” Cic. de Or. 2, 4, 18.— b. Craftily: “obrepere,” Plaut. Trin. 4, 2, 132; Arn. 5, p. 181.

ariskant: Two of Grice’s main tutees were respectively Aristotelian and Kantian scholars: Ackrill and Strawson. Grice, of course, read Ariskant in the vernacular. Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Francis Haywood. William Pickering. 1838. critick of pure reason. (first English translation) Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by J. M. D. Meiklejohn. 1855 – via Project Gutenberg.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott. 1873.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Friedrich Max Müller. The Macmillan Company. 1881. (Introduction by Ludwig Noiré)Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Norman Kemp Smith. Palgrave Macmillan. 1929. ISBN 1-4039-1194-0. Archived from the original on 2009-04-27.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Wolfgang Schwartz. Scientia Verlag und Antiquariat. 1982. ISBN 978-3-5110-9260-3.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Hackett Publishing. 1996. ISBN 978-0-87220-257-3.Critique of Pure Reason, Abridged. Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. Hackett Publishing. 1999. ISBN 978-1-6246-6605-6.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood. Cambridge University Press. 1999. ISBN 978-0-5216-5729-7.Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by Marcus Weigelt. Penguin Books. 2007. ISBN 978-0-1404-4747-7. Grice’s favourite philosopher is Ariskant. One way to approach Grice’s meta-philosophy is by combining teleology with deontology. Eventually, Grice embraces a hedonistic eudaimonism, if rationally approved. Grice knows how to tutor in philosophy: he tutor on Kant as if he is tutoring on Aristotle, and vice versa. His tutees would say, Here come [sic] Kantotle. Grice is obsessed with Kantotle. He would teach one or the other as an ethics requirement. Back at Oxford, the emphasis is of course Aristotle, but he is aware of some trends to introduce Kant in the Lit.Hum. curriculum, not with much success. Strawson does his share with the pure reason in Kant in The bounds of sense, but White professors of moral philosophy are usually not too keen on the critique by Kant of practical reason. Grice is fascinated that an Irishman, back in 1873, cares to translate (“for me”) all that Kant has to say about the eudaimonism and hedonism of Aristotle. An Oxonian philosopher is expected to be a utilitarian, as Hare is, or a Hegelian, and that is why Grice prefers, heterodoxical as he is, to be a Kantian rationalist instead. But Grice cannot help being Aristotelian, Hardie having instilled the “Eth. Nich.” on him at Corpus. While he can’t read Kant in German, Grice uses Abbott’s Irish vernacular. Note the archaic metaphysic sic in singular.  More Kant. Since Baker can read the vernacular even less than Grice, it may be good to review the editions. It all starts when Abbott thinks that his fellow Irishmen are unable to tackle Kant in the vernacular. Abbott’s thing comes out in 1873: Kant’s critique of practical reason and other works on the theory of tthics, with Grice quipping. Oddly, I prefer his other work! Grice collaborates with Baker mainly on work on meta-ethics seen as an offspring, alla Kant, of philosophical psychology. Akrasia or egkrateia is one such topic. Baker contributes to PGRICE, a festschrift for Grice, with an essay on the purity, and alleged lack thereof, of this or that morally evaluable motive – rhetorically put: do ones motives have to be pure? For Grice morality cashes out in self-love, self-interest, and desire. Baker also contributes to a volume on Grice’s honour published by Palgrave, Meaning and analysis: essays on Grice. Baker organises of a symposium on the thought of Grice for the APA, the proceedings of which published in The Journal of Philosophy, with Bennett as chair, contributions by Baker and Grandy, commented by Stalnaker andWarner. Grice explores with Baker problems of egcrateia and the reduction of duty to self-love and interest. Refs.: The obvious keyword is “Kant,” – especially in the Series III on the doctrines, in collaboration with Baker. There are essays on the Grundlegung, too. The keyword for “Kantotle,” and the keywords for ‘free,’ and ‘freedom,’ and ‘practical reason,’ and ‘autonomy, are also helpful. Some of this material in “Actions and events,” “The influence of Kant on Aristotle,” by H. P. Grice, John Locke Scholar (failed), etc., Oxford (Advisor: J. Dempsey). The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

arbor griceiana: When Kant introduces the categoric imperative in terms of the ‘maxim’ he does  not specify which. He just goes, irritatingly, “Make the maxim of your conduct a law of nature.” This gave free rein to Grice to multiply maxims as much as he wished. If he was an occamist about senses, he certainly was an anti-occamist about maxims. The expression Strawson and Wiggins use (p. 520) is “ramification.”So Grice needs just ONE principle – indeed the idea of principles, in plural, is self-contradictory. For whch ‘first’ is ‘first’? Eventually, he sticks with the principle of conversational co-operation. And the principle of conversational co-operation, being Ariskantian, and categoric, even if not ‘moral,’ “ramifies into” the maxims. This is important. While an ‘ought’ cannot be derived from an ‘is,’ an ‘ought’ can yield a sub-ought. So whatever obligation the principle brings, the maxim inherit. The maxim is also stated categoric. But it isn’t. It is a ‘counsel of prudence,’ and hypothetical in nature – So, Grice is just ‘playing Kant,’ but not ‘being’ Kant. The principle states the GOAL (not happiness, unless we call it ‘conversational eudaemonia’). In any case, as Hare would agree, there is ‘deontic derivability.’ So if the principle ramifies into the maxims, the maxims are ‘deductible’ from the principle. This deductibility is obvious in terms of from generic to specific. The principle merely enjoins to make the conversational move as is appropriate. Then, playing with Kant, Grice chooses FOUR dimensions. Two correspond to the material: the quale and the quantum. The quale relates to affirmation and negation, and Grice uses ‘false,’ which while hardly conceptually linked to ‘negation,’ it relates in common parlance. So you have things like a prohibition to say the ‘false’ (But “it is raining” can be false, and it’s affirmative). The quantum relates to what Grice calls ‘informative CONTENT.’ He grants that the verb ‘inform’ already ENTAILS the candour that quality brings. So ‘fortitude’ seems a better way to qualify this dimension. Make the strongest conversational move. The clash with the quality is obvious – “provided it’s not false.” The third dimension relates two two materials. Notably the one by the previous conversationalist and your own. If A said, “She is an old bag.” B says, “The weather’s been delightful.” By NOT relating the ‘proposition’ “The weather has been delightful” to “She is an old bag.” He ‘exploits’ the maxim. This is not a concept in Kant. It mocks Kant. But yet, ‘relate!’ does follow from the principle of cooperation. So, there is an UNDERLYING relation, as Hobbes noted, when he discussed a very distantly related proposition concerning the history of Rome, and expecting the recipient to “only connect.” So the ‘exploitation’ is ‘superficial,’ and applies to the explicatum. Yet, the emissor does communicate that the weather has been delightful. Only there is no point in informing the recipient about it, unless he is communicating that the co-conversationalist has made a gaffe. Finally, the category of ‘modus’ Grice restricts to the ‘forma,’ not the ‘materia.’ “Be perspicuous” is denotically entailed by “Make your move appropriate.” This is the desideratum of clarity. The point must be ‘explicit.’  This is Strawson and Wiggins way of putting this. It’s a difficult issue. What the connection is between Grice’s principle of conversational helpfulness and the attending conversational maxims. Strawson and Wiggins state that Grice should not feel the burden to make the maxims ‘necessarily independent.’

The image of the ramification is a good one – Grice called it ‘arbor griceiana.’

Austinian code, The: The jocular way by Grice to refer to ‘The Master,’ whom he saw wobble on more than one occasion. Grice has mixed feelings (“or fixed meelings, if you prefer”) about Austin. Unlike Austin, Grice is a Midlands scholarship boy, and ends up in Corpus. One outcome of this, as he later reminisced is that Austin never cared to invite him to the Thursday-evenings at All Souls – “which was alright, I suppose, in that the number was appropriately restricted to seven.” But Grice confessed that he thought it was because “he had been born on the wrong side of the tracks.” After the war, Grice would join what Grice, in fun, called “the Playgroup,” which was anything BUT. Austin played the School Master, and let the kindergarten relax in the sun! One reason Grice avoided publication was the idea that Austin would criticise him. Austin never cared to recognise Grice’s “Personal Identity,” or less so, “Meaning.” He never mentioned his “Metaphysics” third programme lecture – but Austin never made it to the programme. Grice socialized very well with who will be Austin’s custodians, in alphabetical order, Urmson and Warnock – “two charmers.” Unlike Austin, Urmson and Warnock were the type of person Austin would philosophise with – and he would spend hours talking about visa with Warnock. Upon Austin’s demise, Grice kept with the ‘play group’, which really became one! Grice makes immense references to Austin. Austin fits Grice to a T, because of the ‘mistakes’ he engages in. So, it is fair to say that Grice’s motivation for the coinage of implicature was Austin (“He would too often ignore the distinction between what a ‘communicator’ communicates and what his expression, if anything, does.”). So Grice attempts an intention-based account of the communicator’s message. Within this message, there is ONE aspect that can usually be regarded as being of ‘philosophical interest.’ The ‘unnecessary implicature’ is bound to be taken Austin as part of the ‘philosophical interesting’ bit when it isn’t. So Grice is criticizing Austin for providing the wrong analysis for the wrong analysandum. Grice refers specifically to the essays in “Philosophical Papers,” notably “Other Minds” and “A Plea for Excuses.” But he makes a passing reference to “Sense and Sensibilia,” whose tone Grice dislikes, and makes a borrowing or two from the ‘illocution,’ never calling it by that name. At most, Grice would adapt Austin’s use of ‘act.’ But his rephrase is ‘conversational move.’ So Grice would say that by making a conversational ‘move,’ the conversationalist may be communicating TWO things. He spent some type finding a way to conceptualise this. He later came with the metaphor of the FIRST-FLOOR act, the MEZZANINE act, and the SECOND-FLOOR act. This applies to Fregeianisms like ‘aber,’ but it may well apply to Austinian-code type of utterances.

Austinianism: Grice felt sorry for Nowell-Smith, whom he calls the ‘straight-man’ for the comedy double act with Austin at the Play Groups. “I would say ‘on principle’” – “I would say, ‘no, thanks.” “I don’t understand Donne.” “It’s perfectly clear to me.” By using Nowell-Sith, Grice is implicating that Austin had little manners in the ‘play group,’ “And I wasn’t surprised when Nowell-Smith left Oxford for good, almost.” Not quite, of course. After some time in the extremely fashionable Canterbury, Nowell-Smith returns to Oxford. Vide: nowell-smithianism.

ayerism. Born of Swiss parentage in London, “Freddie” got an Oxford educated, and though he wanted to be a judge, he read Lit. Hum (Phil.). He spent three months in Vienna, and when he returned, Grice called him ‘enfant terrible.’ Ayer would later cite Grice in the Aristotelian symposium on the Causal Theory of Perception. But the type of subtlety in conversational implicature that Grice is interested goes over Freddie’s head. (“That,” or he was not interested.” Grice was glad that Oxford was ready to attack Ayer on philosophical grounds, and he later lists Positivism as a ‘monster’ on his way to the City of Eternal Truth. “Verificationism” was anti-Oxonian, in being mainly anti-Bradleyian, who is recognised by every Oxonian philosopher as “one of the clearest and subtlest prosists in English, and particularly Oxonian, philosophy.” Ayer later became the logic professor at Oxford – which is now taught no longer at the Sub-Faculty of Philosophy, but the Department of Mathematics!

bite off more than you can chew: To bite is the function of the FRONT teeth (incisors and canines); the back teeth (molars) CHEW, crush, or grind. So the relation is Russellian.  1916 G. B. Shaw Pygmalion 195 The mistake we describe metaphorically as ‘biting off more than they can chew’.  a1960 J. L. Austin Sense & Sensibilia (1962) i. 1 They [sc. doctrines] all bite off more than they can chew. While the NED would not DARE define this obviousness, the OED does not. to undertake too much, to be too ambitious – “irrational” simpliciter for Grice (WoW).

Blackburn’s skull. Blackburn's "one-off predicament" of communicating without a shared language illustrates how Grice's theory can be applied to iconic signals such as the drawing of a skull to wam of danger. See his Spreading the Word. III. 112.

bonum: Grice makes fun of Hare n “Language of Morals.” To what extent is Hare saying that to say ‘x is good’ means ‘I approve of x’? (Strictly: “To say that something is good is to recommend it”). To say " I approve of x " is in part to do the same thing as when we say " x is good " a statement of the form " X is good" strictly designates " I approve of X " and suggests " Do so as well". It should be in Part II to “Language of Morals”. Old Romans did not have an article, so for them it is unum, bonum, verum, and pulchrum. They were trying to translate the very articled Grecian things, ‘to agathon,’ ‘to alethes,’ and ‘to kallon.’ The three references given by Liddell and Scott are good ones. τὸ ἀ., the good, Epich.171.5, cf. Pl.R.506b, 508e, Arist.Metaph.1091a31, etc. The Grecian Grice is able to return to the ‘article’. Grice has an early essay on ‘the good,’ and he uses the same expression at Oxford for the Locke lectures when looking for a ‘desiderative’ equivalent to ‘the true.’ Hare had dedicated the full part of his “Language of Morals” to ‘good,’ so Grice is well aware of the centrality of the topic. He was irritated by what he called a performatory approach to the good, where ‘x is good’ =df. ‘I approve of x.’ Surely that’s a conversational implicatum. However, in his analysis of reasoning (the demonstratum – since he uses the adverb ‘demonstrably’ as a marker of pretty much like ‘concusively,’ as applied to both credibility and desirability, we may focus on what Grice sees as ‘bonum’ as one of the ‘absolutes,’ the absolute in the desirability realm, as much as the ‘verum’ is the absolute in the credibility realm. Grice has an excellent argument regarding ‘good.’ His example is ‘cabbage,’ but also ‘sentence.’ Grice’s argument is to turn the disimpicatum into an explicitum. To know what a ‘cabbage,’ or a formula is, you need to know first what a ‘good’ cabbage is or a ‘well-formed formula,’ is. An ill-formed sentence is not deemed by Grice a sentence. This means that we define ‘x’ as ‘optimum x.’ This is not so strange, seeing that ‘optimum’ is actually the superlative of ‘bonum’ (via the comparative). It does not require very sharp eyes, but only the willingness to use the eyes one has, to see that our speech and thought are permeated with the notion of purpose; to say what a certain kind of thing is is only too frequently partly to say what it is for. This feature applies to our talk and thought of, for example, ships, shoes, sealing wax, and kings; and, possibly and perhaps most excitingly, it extends even to cabbages.“There is a range of cases in which, so far from its being the case that, typically, one first learns what it is to be a F and then, at the next stage, learns what criteria distinguish a good F from a F which is less good, or not good at all, one needs first to learn what it is to be a good F, and then subsequently to learn what degree of approximation to being a good F will qualify an item as a F; if the gap between some item x and good Fs is sufficently horrendous, x is debarred from counting as a F at all, even as a bad F.”“In the John Locke Lectures, I called a concept which exhibits this feature as a ‘value-paradeigmatic’ concept. One example of a value-paradeigmatic concept is the concept of reasoning; another, I now suggest, is that of sentence. It may well be that the existence of value-oriented concepts (¢b ¢ 2 . • • . ¢n) depends on the prior existence of pre-rational concepts ( ¢~, ¢~ . . . . ¢~), such that an item x qualifies for the application of the concept ¢ 2 if and only if x satisfies a rationally-approved form or version of the corresponding pre-rational concept ¢'. We have a (primary) example of a step in reasoning only if we have a transition of a certain rationally approved kind from one thought or utterance to another.

bootstrap: Grice certainly didn’t have a problem with meta-langauge paradoxes. Two of his maxims are self refuting and ‘sic’-ed: “be perspicuous [sic]” and “be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity) [sic].” The principle introduced by Grice in “Prejudices and predilections; which become, the life and opinions of H. P. Grice,” to limit the power of the meta-language. The weaker your metalanguage the easier you’ll be able to pull yourself by your own bootstraps. He uses bootlaces in “Metaphysics, Philosophical Eschatology, and Plato’s Republic.”

byzantine. This is important since it displays Grice’s disrespect for stupid traditions. There is Austin trying to lecture what he derogatorily called ‘philosophical hack’ (“I expect he was being ironic”) into learning through the Little Oxford Dictionary. HARDLY Grice’s cup of tea. Austiin, or the ‘master,’ as Grice ironically calls him, could patronize less patrician play group members, but not him! In any case, Austin grew so tiresome, that Grice grabbed the Little Dictionary. Austin had gave him license to go and refute Ryle on ‘feeling’. “So, go and check with the dictionary, to see howmany things you can feel.” Grice started with the A and got as far as the last relevant item under the ‘B,” he hoped. “And then I realised it was all hopeless. A waste. Language botany, indeed!” At a later stage, he grew more affectionate, especially when seeing that this was part of his armoury (as Gellner had noted): a temperament, surely not shared by Strawson, for subtleties and nuances. How Byzantine can Grice feel? Vide ‘agitation.’ Does feeling Byzantine entail a feeling of BEING Byzantine? originally used of the style of art and architecture developed there 4c.-5c. C.E.; later in reference to the complex, devious, and intriguing character of the royal court of Constantinople (1937). Bȳzantĭum , ii, n., = Βυζάντιον,I.a city in Thrace, on the Bosphorus, opposite the Asiatic Chalcedon, later Constantinopolis, now Constantinople; among the Turks, Istamboul or Stamboul (i.e. εις τὴν πόλιν), Mel. 2, 2, 6; Plin. 4, 11, 18, § 46; 9, 15, 20, § 50 sq.; Nep. Paus. 2, 2; Liv. 38, 16, 3 sq.; Tac. A. 12, 63 sq.; id. H. 2. 83; 3, 47 al.—II. Derivv.A. Bȳzantĭus , a, um, adj., of Byzantium, Byzantine: “litora,” the Strait of Constantinople, Ov. Tr. 1, 10, 31: “portus,” Plin. 9, 15, 20, § 51.—Subst.: Bȳ-zantĭi , ōrum, m., the inhabitants of Byzantium, Cic. Prov. Cons. 3, 5; 4, 6 sq.; Cic. Verr. 2, 2, 31, § 76; Nep. Timoth. 1, 2; Liv. 32, 33, 7.—B. Bȳzantĭăcus , a, um, adj., of Byzantium: “lacerti,” Stat. S. 4, 9, 13. — C. Bȳzantīnus , a, um, adj., the same (post-class.): “Lygos,” Aus. Clar. Urb. 2: “frigora,” Sid. Ep. 7, 17.

cæteris  paribus: Strawson and Wiggins: that the principle holds ceteris paribus is a necessary condition for the very existence of the activity in question. Central. Grice technically directs his attenetion to this in his “Method”. There, he tries to introduce “WILLING” as a predicate, i.e. a theoretical concept which is implicitly defined by the LAW in a THEORY that it occurs. This theory is ‘psychology,’ but understood as a ‘folk science.’ So the conditionals are ‘ceteris paribus.’ Schiffer and Cartwright were aware of this. Especially Cartwright who attended seminars on this with Grice on ‘as if.’ Schiffer was well aware of the topic via Loar and others. Griceians who were trying to come up with a theory of content without relying on semantic stuff would involve ‘caeteris paribus’ ‘laws.’ Grice in discussion with Davidson comes to the same conclusion, hence his “A T C,’ all things considered and prima facie. H. L. A. Hart, with his concept of ‘defeasibility’ relates. Vide Baker. And obviously those who regard ‘implicature’ as nonmonotonic.

captainship. Strawson calls Grice his captain. In the inaugural lecture. . A struggle on what seems to be such a From Meaning and Truth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970) TRUTH AND MEANING central issue in philosophy should have something of a Homeric quality; and a Homeric struggle calls for gods and heroes. I can at least, though tentatively, name some living captains and benevolent shades: on the one side, say, Grice, Austin, and the later Wittgenstein; on the other, Chomsky, Frege, and the earlier Wittgenstein.

category of conversational mode: This category posed a special conceptual problem to Grice. Recall that his categories are invoked only by their power to generate conversational implciata. But a conversational implicatum is non-detachable. That is, being based on universalistic principles of general rationality, it cannot attach to an EXPRESSION, less so to the ‘meaning’ of an EXPRESSION: “if” and “provided” are REALISATIONS of the concept of the conditionality. Now, the conversational supra-maxim, ‘be perspicuous’ [sic], is supposed to apply NOT to the content, or matter, but to the FORM. (Strictly, quantitas and qualitas applies to matter, RELATIO applies to the link between at least two matters). Grice tweaks things in such a way that he is happy, and so am I. This is a pun on Aristkant’s Kategorie (Ammonius, tropos, Boëthius, modus, Kant Modalitat). Gesichtspuncte der Modalität in assertorische, apodiktische und problematische hat sich aus der Aristotelischen Eintheilung hervorgebildet (Anal. Dr. 1, 2): 7@ợc gócois atv n 100 incozy h kỹ kvayxns Úndozav û toù {VJÉZEo fai Úndozev: Doch geht diese Aristotelische Stelle vielmehr auf die analogen objectiven Verhältnisse, als auf den subjectiven Gewissheitsgrad. Der Zusatz Svvatóv, įvsezóuevov, és åviyans, jedoch auch eine adverbiale Bestimmung wie taméws in dem Satze ý σελήνη ταχέως αποκαθίσταται, heisst bei Ammonius τρόπος (zu περί ερμ. Cap. 12) und bei Boëthius modus. Kant (Kritik der r. Vern. § 9-11; Prolegom. $ 21, Log. § 30) gründet die Eintheilung nach der Modalität auf die modalen Kategorien: Möglichkeit und Unmöglichkeit, Dasein und Nichtsein, Nothwendigkeit und Zufälligkeit, wobei jedoch die Zusammenstellung der Unmöglichkeit, die eine negative Nothwendigkeit ist, mit der Möglichkeit, und ebenso der Zufälligkeit, die das nicht als nothwendig erkannte Dasein bezeichnet, mit der Nothwendigkeit eine Ungenauigkeit enthält: die Erkenntniss der Unmöglichkeit ist nicht ein problematisches, sondern ein (negativ-) apodiktisches Urtheil (was Kant in der Anwendung selbst anerkennt, indem er z. B. Krit. der r. V. S. 191 die Formel: es ist unmöglich etc. als Ausdruck einer apodiktischen Gewissheit betrachtet), und die Erkenntniss des Zufälligen ist nicht ein apodiktisches, sondern ein assertorisches Urtheil. Ausserdem aber hat Kant das subjective und objective Element in den Kategorien der Qualität und Modalität nicht bestimmt genug unterschieden.

category of conversational quality: This was originally the desideratum of conversational candour. At that point, there was no Kantian scheme of categories in the horizon. Candour Grice arbitrarily contrasts with clarity – and so the desideratum of conversational candour sometimes clashes with the desideratum of conversational clarity. One may not be able to provide a less convoluted utterance (“It is raining”) but use the less clear, but more candid, “It might be raining, for all I know.” A pun on Aristkan’s Kategorie, poiotes, qualitas, Qualitat.  Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long', of quality, such attributes as 'white', 'grammatical'.

category of conversational quantity: Grice would often use ‘a fortiori,’ and then it dawned on him. “All I need is a principle of conversational fortitude. This will give the Oxonians the Graeco-Roman pedigree they deserve.’  a pun on Ariskant’s Kategorie, posotes, quantitas, Quantitat. Grice expands this as ‘quantity of information,’ or ‘informative content’ – which then as he recognises overlaps with the category of conversational quality, because ‘false information’ is a misnomer. Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long'

category of conversational relation: If there are categories of being, and categories of thought, and categories of expression, surely there is room for the ‘conversational category.’ A pun on Ariskant’s Kategorie (pros ti, ad aliquid, Relation). Surely a move has to relate to the previous move, and should include a tag as to what move will relate. Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection. To sketch my meaning roughly, examples of substance are 'man' or 'the horse', of quantity, such terms as 'two cubits long' or 'three cubits long', of quality, such attributes as 'white', 'grammatical'. 'Double', 'half', 'greater', fall under the category of relation.

causatum: Grice’s idea of ‘cause’ is his ‘bite’ on reality. He chooses ‘Phenomenalism’ as an enemy. Causal realism is at the heart of Grice’s programme. As an Oxonian, he was well aware that to trust a cause is to be anti-Cambridge, where they follow Hume’s and Kant’s scepticism. Grice uses ‘cause’ rather casually. His most serious joke is “Charles I’s decapitation willed his death” – but it is not easy to trace a philosopher who explicitly claim that ‘to cause’ is ‘to will.’ For in God the means and the end preexist in the cause as willed together. Causation figures large in Grice, notably re: the perceptum. The agent perceives that the pillar box is red. The cause is that the pillar box is red. Out of that, Grice constructs a whole theory of conversation. Why would someone just report what a THING SEEMS to him when he has no doubt that it was THE THING that caused the thing to SEEM red to him? Applying some sort of helpfulness, it works: the addressee is obviously more interested in what the thing IS, not what it seems. A sense-datum is not something you can eat. An apple is. So, the assumption is that a report of what a thing IS is more relevant than a report about what a thing SEEMS. So,  Grice needs to find a rationale that justifies, ceteris paribus, the utterance of “The thing seems phi.” Following helpfulness, U utters “The thing seems phi” when the U is not in a position to say what the thing IS phi. The denial, “The thing is not phi” is in the air, and also the doubt, “The thing may not be phi.” Most without a philosophical background who do not take Grice’s joke of echoing Kant’s categories (Kant had 12, not 4!) play with quantitas, qualitas, relatio and modus. Grice in “Causal” uses ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ but grants he won’t ‘determine’ in what way ‘the thing seems phi’ is ‘weaker’ than ‘the thing is phi.’ It might well be argued that it’s STRONGER: the thing SEEEMS TO BE phi.’ In the previous “Introduction to Logical Theory,” Strawson just refers to Grice’s idea of a ‘pragmatic rule’ to the effect that one utter the LOGICALLY stronger proposition. Let’s revise dates. Whereas Grice says that his confidence in the success of “Causal,” he ventured with Strawson’s “Intro,” Strawson is citing Grice already. Admittedly, Strawson adds, “in a different context.” But Grice seems pretty sure that “The thing seems phi” is WEAKER than “The thing is phi.” In 1961 he is VERY CLEAR that while what he may have said to Strawson that Strawson reported in that footnote was in terms of LOGICAL STRENGTH (in terms of entailment, for extensional contexts). In “Causal,” Grice is clear that he does not think LOGICAL STRENGTH applies to intensional contexts. In later revisions, it is not altogether clear how he deals with the ‘doubt or denial.’ He seems to have been more interested in refuting G. A. Paul (qua follower of Witters) than anything else. In his latest reformulation of the principle, now a conversational category, he is not specific about phenomenalist reports.

certum: To be certain is to have dis-cerned. Oddly, Grice ‘evolved’ from an interest in the certainty and incorrigibility that ‘ordinary’ and the first-person gives to situations of ‘conversational improbability’ and indeterminate implicata under conditions of ceteris paribus risk and uncertainty in survival. “To be certain that p” is for Grice one of those ‘diaphanous’ verbs. While it is best to improve Descartes’s fuzzy lexicon – and apply ‘certus’ to the emissor, if Grice is asked, “What are you certain of?,” “I have to answer, ‘p’”.  certum: certitude, from ecclesiastical medieval Roman “certitudo,” designating in particular Christian conviction, is heir to two meanings of “certum,” one objective and the other subjective: beyond doubt, fixed, positive, real, regarding a thing or knowledge, or firm in his resolutions, decided, sure, authentic, regarding an individual. Although certitudo has no Grecian equivalent, the Roman verb “cernere,” (cf. discern), from which “certum” is derived, has the concrete meaning of pass through a sieve, discern, like the Grecian “ϰρίνειν,” select, sieve, judge, which comes from the same root. Thus begins the relationship between certitude, judgment, and truth, which since Descartes has been connected with the problematics of the subject and of self-certainty. The whole terminological system of truth is thus involved, from unveiling and adequation to certitude and obviousness. Then there’s Certainty, Objectivity, Subjectivity, and Linguistic Systems  The objective aspect manifests itself first, “certitudo” translating e. g.  the determined nature of objects or known properties as the commentaries on Aristotle’s Met. translated into Roman, or the incontestably true nature of principles. With the revolution of the subject inaugurated by Cartesian Phil. , the second aspect comes to the fore: some reasons, ideas, or propositions are true and certain, or true and evident, but the most certain and the most evident of all, and thus in a sense the truest, is the certitude of my own existence, a certainty that the subject attributes to itself: The thematics of certainty precedes that of consciousness both historically and logically, but it ends up being incorporated and subordinated by it. Certainty thus becomes a quality or disposition of the subject that reproduces, in the field of rational knowledge, the security or assurance that the believer finds in religious faith, and that shields him from the wavering of the soul. It will be noted that Fr.  retains the possibility of reversing the perspective by exploiting the Roman etymology, as Descartes does in the Principles of Phil.  when he transforms the certitudo probabilis of the Scholastics Aquinas into moral certainty. On the other hand, Eng. tends to objectify “certainty” to the maximum in opposition to belief v. BELIEF, whereas G.  hears in “Gewissheit” the root “wissen,” to know, to have learned and situates it in a series with Bewusstsein and Gewissen, clearly marking the constitutive relationship to the subject in opposition to Glaube on the one hand, and to Wahrheit and Wahrscheinlichkeit lit., appearance of truth, i.e., probability on the other. Then there’s Knots of Problems  On the relations between certainty and belief, the modalities of subjective experience. On the relation between individual certainty and the wise man’s constancy. On the relations between certainty and truth, the confrontation between subjectivity and objectivity in the development of knowledge. On the relations between certainty and probability, the modalities of objective knowledge insofar as it is related to a subject’s experience.  uncertainty. This is Grice’s principle of uncertainty. One of Grice’s problem is with ‘know’ and ‘certainty.’ He grants that we only know that 2 + 2 = 4. He often identifies ‘knowledge’ with ‘certainty.’ He does not explore a cancellation like, “I am certain but I do not know.” The reason being that he defends common sense against the sceptic, and so his attitude towards certainty has to be very careful. The second problem is that he wants ‘certainty’ to deal within the desiderative realm. To do that, he divides an act of intending into two: an act of accepting and act of willing. The ‘certainty’ is found otiose if the intender is seen as ‘willing that p’ and accepting that the willing will be the cause for the desideratum to obtain.  n WoW:141, Grice proposes that ‘A is certain that p’ ENTAILS either ‘A is certain that he is certain that p, OR AT LEAST that it is not the case that A is UNCERTAIN that A is certain that p.” ‘Certainly,’ appears to apply to utterances in the credibility and the desirability realm. Grice sometimes uses ‘to be sure.’ He notoriously wants to distinguish it from ‘know.’ Grice explores the topic of incorrigibility and ends up with corrigibility which almost makes a Popperian out of him. In the end, its all about the converational implciata and conversation as rational co-operation. Why does P2 should judge that P1 is being more or less certain about what he is talking? Theres a rationale for that. Our conversation does not consist of idle remarks. Grices example: "The Chairman of the British Academy has a corkscrew in his pocket. Urmsons example: "The king is visiting Oxford tomorrow. Why? Oh, for no reason at all. As a philosophical psychologist, and an empiricist with realist tendencies, Grice was obsessed with what he called (in a nod to the Kiparskys) the factivity of know. Surely, Grices preferred collocation, unlike surely Ryles, is "Grice knows that p." Grice has no problem in seeing this as involving three clauses: First, p. Second, Grice believes that p, and third, p causes Grices belief. No mention of certainty. This is the neo-Prichardian in Grice, from having been a neo-Stoutian (Stout was obsessed, as a few Oxonians like Hampshire and Hart were, with certainty). If the three-prong analysis of know applies to the doxastic, Grices two-prong analysis of intending in ‘Intention and UNcertainty,’ again purposively avoiding certainty, covers the buletic realm. This does not mean that Grice, however proud he was of his ignorance of the history of philosophy (He held it as a badge of honour, his tuteee Strawson recalls), had read some of the philosophical classics to realise that certainty had been an obsession of what Ryle abusively (as he himself puts it) called Descartes and the Establishments "official doctrine"! While ps true in Grices analysis of know is harmless enough, there obviously is no correlate for ps truth in the buletic case. Grices example is Grice intending to scratch his head, via his willing that Grice scratches his head in t2. In this case, as he notes, the doxastic eleent involves the uniformity of nature, and ones more or less relying that if Grice had a head to be scratched in t1, he will have a head to be sratched in t2, when his intention actually GETS satisfied, or fulfilled. Grice was never worried about buletic satisfaction. As the intentionalist that Suppes showed us Grice was, Grice is very much happy to say that if Smith intends to give Joness a job, the facct as to whether Jones actually gets the job is totally irrelevant for most philosophical purposes. He gets more serious when he is happier with privileged access than incorrigibility in “Method.” But he is less strict than Austin. For Austin, "That is a finch implies that the utterer KNOWS its a finch. While Grice has a maxim, do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence (Gettiers analysandum)  and a super-maxim, try to make your contribution one that is true,  the very phrasing highlights Grices cavalier to this! Imagine Kant turning on his grave. "Try!?". Grice is very clever in having try in the super-maxim, and a prohibition as the maxim, involving falsehood avoidance, "Do not say what you believe to be false." Even here he is cavalier. "Cf. "Do not say what you KNOW to be false." If Gettier were wrong, the combo of maxims yields, "Say what you KNOW," say what you are certain about! Enough for Sextus Empiricus having one single maxim: "Either utter a phenomenalist utterance, a question or an order, or keep your mouth shut!." (cf. Grice, "My lips are sealed," as cooperative or helfpul in ways -- "At least he is not lying."). Hampshire, in the course of some recent remarks,l advances the view that self-prediction is (logically) impossible. When I say I know that I shall do X (as against, e.g., X will happen to me, or You will do X), I am not contemplating myself, as I might someone else, and giving tongue to a conjecture about myself and my future acts, as I might be doing about someone else or about the behaviour ofan animal -for that would be tantamount (if I understand him rightly) to looking upon myself from outside, as it were, and treating my own acts as mere caused events. In saying that I know that I shall do X, I am, on this view, saying that I have decided to do X: for to predict that I shall in certain circumstances in fact do X or decide to do X, with no reference to whether or not I have already decided to do it - to say I can tell you now that I shall in fact act in manner X, although I am, as a matter of fact, determined to do the very opposite - does not make sense. Any man who says I know myself too well to believe that, whatever I now decide, I shall do anything other than X when the circumstances actually arise is in fact, if I interpret Hampshires views correctly, saying that he does not really, i.e. seriously, propose to set himself against doing X, that he does not propose even to try to act otherwise, that he has in fact decided to let events take their course. For no man who has truly decided to try to avoid X can, in good faith, predict his own failure to act as he has decided. He may fail to avoid X, and he may predict this; but he cannot both decide to try to avoid X and predict that he will not even try to do this; for he can always try; and he knows this: he knows that this is what distinguishes him from non-human creatures in nature. To say that he will fail even to try is tantamount to saying that he has decided not to try. In this sense I know means I have decided and (Murdoch, Hampshire, Gardiner and Pears, Freedom and Knowledge, in Pears, Freedom and the Will) cannot in principle be predictive. That, if I have understood it, is Hampshires position, and I have a good deal of sympathy with it, for I can see that self-prediction is often an evasive way of disclaiming responsibility for difficult decisions, while deciding in fact to let events take their course, disguising this by attributing responsibility for what occurs to my own allegedly unalterable nature. But I agree with Hampshires critics in the debate, whom I take to be maintaining that, although the situation he describes may often occur, yet circumstances may exist in which it is possible for me both to say that I am, at this moment, resolved not to do X, and at the same time to predict that I shall do X, because I am not hopeful that, when the time comes, I shall in fact even so much as try to resist doing X. I can, in effect, say I know myself well. When the crisis comes, do not rely on me to help you. I may well run away; although I am at this moment genuinely resolved not to be cowardly and to do all I can to stay at your side. My prediction that my resolution will not in fact hold up is based on knowledge of my own character, and not on my present state of mind; my prophecy is not a symptom of bad faith (for I am not, at this moment, vacillating) but, on the contrary, of good faith, of a wish to face the facts. I assure you in all sincerity that my present intention is to be brave and resist. Yet you would run a great risk if you relied too much on my present decision; it would not be fair to conceal my past failures of nerve from you. I can say this about others, despite the most sincere resolutions on their part, for I can foretell how in fact they will behave; they can equally predict this about me. Despite Hampshires plausible and tempting argument, I believe that such objective self-knowledge is possible and occur. From Descartes to Stout and back. Stout indeed uses both intention and certainty, and in the same paragraph. Stout notes that, at the outset, performance falls far short of intention. Only a certain s. of contractions of certain muscles, in proper proportions and in a proper order, is capable of realising the end aimed at, with the maximum of rapidity and certainty, and the minimum of obstruction and failure, and corresponding effort. At the outset of the process of acquisition, muscles are contracted which are superfluous, and which therefore operate as disturbing conditions. Grices immediate trigger, however, is Ayer on sure that, and having the right to be sure, as his immediate trigger later will be Hampshire and Hart. Grice had high regard for Hampshires brilliant Thought and action.  He was also concerned with Stouts rather hasty UNphilosophical, but more scientifically psychologically-oriented remarks about assurance in practical concerns. He knew too that he was exploring an item of the philosophers lexicon (certus) that had been brought to the forum when Anscombe and von Wright translate Witters German expression Gewißheit in Über Gewißheit as Certainty. The Grecians were never sure about being sure. But the modernist turn brought by Descartes meant that Grice now had to deal with incorrigibility and privileged access to this or that P, notably himself (When I intend to go, I dont have to observe myself, Im on the stage, not in the audience, or Only I can say I will to London, expressing my intention to do so. If you say, you will go you are expressing yours! Grice found Descartes very funny ‒ in a French way. Grice is interested in contesting Ayer and other Oxford philosophers, on the topic of a criterion for certainty. In so doing, Grice choses Descartess time-honoured criterion of clarity and distinction, as applied to perception.  Grice does NOT quote Descartes in French! In the proceedings, Grice distinguishes between two kinds of certainty apparently ignored by Descartes: (a) objective certainty: Ordinary-language variant: It is certain that p, whatever it refers to, cf. Grice, it is an illusion; what is it? (b) Subjective certainty: Ordinary-language variant: I am certain that p. I being, of course, Grice, in my bestest days, of course! There are further items on Descartes in the Grice Collection, notably in the last s. of topics arranged alphabetically. Grice never cared to publish his views on Descartes until he found an opportunity to do so when compiling his WOW. Grice is not interested in an exegesis of Descartess thought. He doesnt care to give a reference to any edition of Descartess oeuvre. But he plays with certain. It is certain that p is objective certainty, apparently. I am certain that p is Subjectsive certainty, rather. Oddly, Grice will turn to UNcertainty as it connects with intention in his BA lecture. Grices interest in Descartes connects with Descartess search for a criterion of certainty in terms of clarity and distinction of this or that perception.  Having explored the philosophy of perception with Warnock, its only natural he wanted to give Descartess rambles a second and third look! Descartes on clear and distinct perception, in WOW, II semantics and metaphysics, essay, Descartes on clear and distinct perception and Malcom on dreaming, perception, Descartes, clear and distinct perception, Malcolm, dreaming. Descartes meets Malcolm, and vice versa.  Descartes on clear and distinct perception, in WOW, Descartes on clear and distinct perception, Descartes on clear and distinct perception, in WOW, part II, semantics and metaphysics, essay. Grice gives a short overview of Cartesian metaphysics for the BBC 3rd programme. The best example, Grice thinks, of a metaphysical snob is provided by Descartes, about whose idea of certainty Grice had philosophised quite a bit, since it is in total contrast with Moore’s. Descartes is a very scientifically minded philosopher, with very clear ideas about the proper direction for science.  Descartes, whose middle Names seems to have been Euclid, thinks that mathematics, and in particular geometry, provides the model for a scientific procedure, or method. And this determines all of Descartess thinking in two ways. First, Descartes thinks that the fundamental method in science is the axiomatic deductive method of geometry, and this Descartes conceives (as Spinoza morality more geometrico) of as rigorous reasoning from a self-evident axiom (Cogito, ergo sum.). Second, Descartes thinks that the Subjects matter of physical science, from mechanics to medicine, must be fundamentally the same as the Subjects matter of geometry! The only characteristics that the objects studied by geometry poses are spatial characteristics. So from the point of view of science in general, the only important features of things in the physical world were also their spatial characteristics, what he called extensio, res extensa. Physical science in general is a kind of dynamic, or kinetic, geometry.   Here we have an exclusive preference for a certain type of scientific method, and a certain type of scientific explanation: the method is deductive, the type of explanation mechanical. These beliefs about the right way to do science are exactly reflected in Descartess ontology, one of the two branches of metaphysics; the other is philosophical eschatology, or the study of categories), and it is reflected in his doctrine, that is, about what really exists.  Apart from God, the divine substance, Descartes recognises just two kinds of substance, two types of real entity. First, there is material substance, or matter; and the belief that the only scientifically important characteristics of things in the physical world are their spatial characteristics goes over, in the language of metaphysics, into the doctrine that these are their only characteristics. Second, and to Ryle’s horror, Descartes recognizes the mind or soul, or the mental substance, of which the essential characteristic is thinking; and thinking itself, in its pure form at least, is conceived of as simply the intuitive grasping of   this or that self-evident axiom and this or that of its deductive consequence. These restrictive doctrines about reality and knowledge naturally call for adjustments elsewhere in our ordinary scheme of things. With the help of the divine substance, these are duly provided.  It is not always obvious that the metaphysicians scheme involves this kind of ontological preference, or favoritism, or prejudice, or snobbery this tendency, that is, to promote one or two categories of entity to the rank of the real, or of the ultimately real, to the exclusion of others, Descartess entia realissima. One is taught at Oxford that epistemology begins with the Moderns such as Descartes, which is not true. Grice was concerned with “certain,” which was applied in Old Roman times to this or that utterer: the person who is made certain in reference to a thing, certain, sure. Lewis and Short have a few quotes: “certi sumus periisse omnia;” “num quid nunc es certior?,” “posteritatis, i. e. of posthumous fame,” “sententiæ,” “judicii,” “certus de suā geniturā;” “damnationis;” “exitii,” “spei,” “matrimonii,” “certi sumus;” in the phrase “certiorem facere aliquem;” “de aliquā re, alicujus rei, with a foll, acc. and inf., with a rel.-clause or absol.;” “to inform, apprise one of a thing: me certiorem face: “ut nos facias certiores,” “uti Cæsarem de his rebus certiorem faciant;” “qui certiorem me sui consilii fecit;” “Cæsarem certiorem faciunt, sese non facile ab oppidis vim hostium prohibere;” “faciam te certiorem quid egerim;” with subj. only, “milites certiores facit, paulisper intermitterent proelium,” pass., “quod crebro certior per me fias de omnibus rebus,” “Cæsar certior factus est, tres jam copiarum partes Helvetios id flumen transduxisse;” “factus certior, quæ res gererentur,” “non consulibus certioribus factis,” also in posit., though rarely; “fac me certum quid tibi est;” “lacrimæ suorum tam subitæ matrem certam fecere ruinæ,” uncertainty, Grice loved the OED, and its entry for will was his favourite. But he first had a look to shall. For Grice, "I shall climb Mt. Everest," is surely a prediction. And then Grice turns to the auxiliary he prefers, will. Davidson, Intending, R. Grandy and Warner, PGRICE. “Uncertainty,” “Aspects.” “Conception,” Davidson on intending, intending and trying, Brandeis.”Method,” in “Conception,” WOW . Hampshire and Hart. Decision, intention, and certainty, Mind, Harman, Willing and intending in PGRICE. Practical reasoning. Review of Met.  29. Thought, Princeton, for functionalist approach alla Grice’s “Method.” Principles of reasoning. Rational action and the extent of intention. Social theory and practice. Jeffrey, Probability kinematics, in The logic of decision, cited by Harman in PGRICE. Kahneman and Tversky, Judgement under uncertainty, Science, cited by Harman in PGRICE. Nisbet and Ross, Human inference, cited by Harman in PGRICE. Pears, Predicting and deciding. Prichard, Acting, willing, and desiring, in Moral obligations, Oxford ed. by Urmson  Speranza, The Grice Circle Wants You. Stout, Voluntary action. Mind 5, repr in Studies in philosophy and psychology, Macmillan, cited by Grice, “Uncertainty.” Urmson, ‘Introduction’ to Prichard’s ‘Moral obligations.’ I shant but Im not certain I wont – Grice. How uncertain can Grice be? This is the Henriette Herz BA lecture, and as such published in The Proceedings of the BA. Grice calls himself a neo-Prichardian (after the Oxford philosopher) and cares to quote from a few other philosophers  ‒ some of whom he was not necessarily associated with: such as Kenny and Anscombe, and some of whom he was, notably Pears. Grices motto: Where there is a neo-Prichardian willing, there is a palæo-Griceian way! Grice quotes Pears, of Christ Church, as the philosopher he found especially congenial to explore areas in what both called philosophical psychology, notably the tricky use of intending as displayed by a few philosophers even in their own circle, such as Hampshire and Hart in Intention, decision, and certainty. The title of Grices lecture is meant to provoke that pair of Oxonian philosophers Grice knew so well and who were too ready to bring in certainty in an area that requires deep philosophical exploration. This is the Henriette Herz Trust annual lecture. It means its delivered annually by different philosophers, not always Grice! Grice had been appointed a FBA earlier, but he took his time to deliver his lecture. With your lecture, you implicate, Hi! Grice, and indeed Pears, were motivated by Hampshires and Harts essay on intention and certainty in Mind. Grice knew Hampshire well, and had actually enjoyed his Thought and Action. He preferred Hampshires Thought and action to Anscombes Intention. Trust Oxford being what it is that TWO volumes on intending are published in the same year! Which one shall I read first? Eventually, neither ‒ immediately. Rather, Grice managed to unearth some sketchy notes by Prichard (he calls himself a neo-Prichardian) that Urmson had made available for the Clarendon Press ‒ notably Prichards essay on willing that. Only a Corpus-Christi genius like Prichard will distinguish will to, almost unnecessary, from will that, so crucial. For Grice, wills that , unlike  wills to, is properly generic, in that p, that follows the that-clause, need NOT refer to the Subjects of the sentence. Surely I can will that Smith wins the match! But Grice also quotes Anscombe (whom otherwise would not count, although they did share a discussion panel at the American Philosophical Association) and Kenny, besides Pears. Of Anscombe, Grice borrows (but never returns) the direction-of-fit term of art, actually Austinian. From Kenny, Grice borrows (and returns) the concept of voliting. His most congenial approach was Pearss. Grice had of course occasion to explore disposition and intention on earlier occasions. Grice is especially concerned with a dispositional analysis to intending. He will later reject it in “Uncertainty.” But that was Grice for you! Grice is especially interested in distinguishing his views from Ryles over-estimated dispositional account of intention, which Grice sees as reductionist, and indeed eliminationist, if not boringly behaviourist, even in analytic key. The logic of dispositions is tricky, as Grice will later explore in connection with rationality, rational propension or propensity, and metaphysics, the as if operator). While Grice focuses on uncertainty, he is trying to be funny. He knew that Oxonians like Hart and Hampshire were obsessed with certainty. I was so surprised that Hampshire and Hart were claiming decision and intention are psychological states about which the agent is certain, that I decided on the spot that that could certainly be a nice topic for my BA lecture! Grice granted that in some cases, a declaration of an intention can be authorative in a certain certain way, i. e. as implicating certainty. But Grice wants us to consider: Marmaduke Bloggs intends to climb Mt. Everest. Surely he cant be certain hell succeed. Grice used the same example at the APA, of all places. To amuse Grice, Davidson, who was present, said: Surely thats just an implicature! Just?! Grice was almost furious in his British guarded sort of way. Surely not just! Pears, who was also present, tried to reconcile: If I may, Davidson, I think Grice would take it that, if certainty is implicated, the whole thing becomes too social to be true.  They kept discussing implicature versus entailment. Is certainty entailed then? Cf. Urmson on certainly vs. knowingly, and believably. Davidson asked. No, disimplicated! is Grices curt reply. The next day, he explained to Davidson that he had invented the concept of disimplicature just to tease him, and just one night before, while musing in the hotel room! Talk of uncertainty was thus for Grice intimately associated with his concern about the misuse of know to mean certain, especially in the exegeses that Malcolm made popular about, of all people, Moore! V. Scepticism and common sense and Moore and philosophers paradoxes above, and Causal theory and Prolegomena for a summary of Malcoms misunderstanding Moore! Grice manages to quote from Stouts Voluntary action and Brecht. And he notes that not all speakers are as sensitive as they should be (e.g. distinguishing modes, as realised by shall vs. will). He emphasizes the fact that Prichard has to be given great credit for seeing that the accurate specification of willing should be willing that and not willing to. Grice is especially interested in proving Stoutians (like Hampshire and Hart) wrong by drawing from Aristotles prohairesis-doxa distinction, or in his parlance, the buletic-doxastic distinction. Grice quotes from Aristotle. Prohairesis cannot be opinion/doxa. For opinion is thought to relate to all kinds of things, no less to eternal things and impossible things than to things in our own power; and it is distinguished by its falsity or truth, not by its badness or goodness, while choice is distinguished rather by these. Now with opinion in general perhaps no one even says it is identical. But it is not identical even with any kind of opinion; for by choosing or deciding, or prohairesis, what is good or bad we are men of a certain character, which we are not by holding this or that opinion or doxa. And we choose to get or avoid something good or bad, but we have opinions about what a thing is or whom it is good for or how it is good for him; we can hardly be said to opine to get or avoid anything. And choice is praised for being related to the right object rather than for being rightly related to it, opinion for being truly related to its object. And we choose what we best know to be good, but we opine what we do not quite know; and it is not the same people that are thought to make the best choices and to have the best opinions, but some are thought to have fairly good opinions, but by reason of vice to choose what they should not. If opinion precedes choice or accompanies it, that makes no difference; for it is not this that we are considering, but whether it is identical with some kind of opinion. What, then, or what kind of thing is it, since it is none of the things we have mentioned? It seems to be voluntary, but not all that is voluntary to be an object of choice. Is it, then, what has been decided on by previous deliberation? At any rate choice involves a rational principle and thought. Even the Names seems to suggest that it is what is chosen before other things. His final analysis of G intends that p is in terms of, B1, a buletic condition, to the effect that G wills that p, and D2, an attending doxastic condition, to the effect that G judges that B1 causes p. Grice ends this essay with a nod to Pears and an open point about the justifiability (other than evidential) for the acceptability of the agents deciding and intending versus the evidential justifiability of the agents predicting that what he intends will be satisfied. It is important to note that in his earlier Disposition and intention, Grice dedicates the first part to counterfactual if general. This is a logical point. Then as an account for a psychological souly concept ψ. If G does A, sensory input, G does B, behavioural output. No ψ without the behavioural output that ψ is meant to explain. His problem is with the first person. The functionalist I does not need a black box. The  here would be both incorrigibility and privileged access. Pology only explains their evolutionary import. Refs.: The main source is his BA lecture on ‘uncertainty,’ but using the keyword ‘certainty’ is useful too. His essay on Descartes in WoW is important, and sources elsehere in the Grice Papers, such as the predecessor to the “Uncertainty” lecture in “Disposition and intention,” also his discussion of avowal (vide references above), incorrigibility and privileged access in “Method,” repr. in “Conception,” BANC

chiliagon: referred to by Grice in “Some remarks about the senses.’ In geometry, a chiliagon, or 1000-gon is a polygon with 1,000 sides. Philosophers commonly refer to chiliagons to illustrate ideas about the nature and workings of thought, meaning, and mental representation. A chiliagon is a regular chiliagon Polygon 1000.svg A regular chiliagon Type Regular polygon Edges and vertices 1000 Schläfli symbol {1000}, t{500}, tt{250}, ttt{125} Coxeter diagram CDel node 1.pngCDel 10.pngCDel 0x.pngCDel 0x.pngCDel node.png CDel node 1.pngCDel 5.pngCDel 0x.pngCDel 0x.pngCDel node 1.png Symmetry group Dihedral (D1000), order 2×1000 Internal angle (degrees) 179.64° Dual polygon Self Properties Convex, cyclic, equilateral, isogonal, isotoxal  A whole regular chiliagon is not visually discernible from a circle. The lower section is a portion of a regular chiliagon, 200 times as large as the smaller one, with the vertices highlighted. In geometry, a chiliagon (/ˈkɪliəɡɒn/) or 1000-gon is a polygon with 1,000 sides. Philosophers commonly refer to chiliagons to illustrate ideas about the nature and workings of thought, meaning, and mental representation.   Contents 1 Regular chiliagon 2 Philosophical application 3 Symmetry 4 Chiliagram 5 See also 6 References Regular chiliagon A regular chiliagon is represented by Schläfli symbol {1,000} and can be constructed as a truncated 500-gon, t{500}, or a twice-truncated 250-gon, tt{250}, or a thrice-truncated 125-gon, ttt{125}.  The measure of each internal angle in a regular chiliagon is 179.64°. The area of a regular chiliagon with sides of length a is given by  {\displaystyle A=250a^{2}\cot {\frac {\pi }{1000}}\simeq 79577.2\,a^{2}}A=250a^{2}\cot {\frac  {\pi }{1000}}\simeq 79577.2\,a^{2} This result differs from the area of its circumscribed circle by less than 4 parts per million.  Because 1,000 = 23 × 53, the number of sides is neither a product of distinct Fermat primes nor a power of two. Thus the regular chiliagon is not a constructible polygon. Indeed, it is not even constructible with the use of neusis or an angle trisector, as the number of sides is neither a product of distinct Pierpont primes, nor a product of powers of two and three.  Philosophical application René Descartes uses the chiliagon as an example in his Sixth Meditation to demonstrate the difference between pure intellection and imagination. He says that, when one thinks of a chiliagon, he "does not imagine the thousand sides or see them as if they were present" before him – as he does when one imagines a triangle, for example. The imagination constructs a "confused representation," which is no different from that which it constructs of a myriagon (a polygon with ten thousand sides). However, he does clearly understand what a chiliagon is, just as he understands what a triangle is, and he is able to distinguish it from a myriagon. Therefore, the intellect is not dependent on imagination, Descartes claims, as it is able to entertain clear and distinct ideas when imagination is unable to. Philosopher Pierre Gassendi, a contemporary of Descartes, was critical of this interpretation, believing that while Descartes could imagine a chiliagon, he could not understand it: one could "perceive that the word 'chiliagon' signifies a figure with a thousand angles [but] that is just the meaning of the term, and it does not follow that you understand the thousand angles of the figure any better than you imagine them." The example of a chiliagon is also referenced by other philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant. David Hume points out that it is "impossible for the eye to determine the angles of a chiliagon to be equal to 1996 right angles, or make any conjecture, that approaches this proportion."[4] Gottfried Leibniz comments on a use of the chiliagon by John Locke, noting that one can have an idea of the polygon without having an image of it, and thus distinguishing ideas from images. Henri Poincaré uses the chiliagon as evidence that "intuition is not necessarily founded on the evidence of the senses" because "we can not represent to ourselves a chiliagon, and yet we reason by intuition on polygons in general, which include the chiliagon as a particular case."  Inspired by Descartes's chiliagon example, Grice, R. M. Chisholm and other 20th-century philosophers have used similar examples to make similar points. Chisholm's ‘speckled hen,’ which need not have a determinate number of speckles to be successfully imagined, is perhaps the most famous of these. Symmetry  The symmetries of a regular chiliagon. Light blue lines show subgroups of index 2. The 4 boxed subgraphs are positionally related by index 5 subgroups. The regular chiliagon has Dih1000 dihedral symmetry, order 2000, represented by 1,000 lines of reflection. Dih100 has 15 dihedral subgroups: Dih500, Dih250, Dih125, Dih200, Dih100, Dih50, Dih25, Dih40, Dih20, Dih10, Dih5, Dih8, Dih4, Dih2, and Dih1. It also has 16 more cyclic symmetries as subgroups: Z1000, Z500, Z250, Z125, Z200, Z100, Z50, Z25, Z40, Z20, Z10, Z5, Z8, Z4, Z2, and Z1, with Zn representing π/n radian rotational symmetry.  John Conway labels these lower symmetries with a letter and order of the symmetry follows the letter.[8] He gives d (diagonal) with mirror lines through vertices, p with mirror lines through edges (perpendicular), i with mirror lines through both vertices and edges, and g for rotational symmetry. a1 labels no symmetry.  These lower symmetries allow degrees of freedom in defining irregular chiliagons. Only the g1000 subgroup has no degrees of freedom but can be seen as directed edges.  Chiliagram A chiliagram is a 1,000-sided star polygon. There are 199 regular forms[9] given by Schläfli symbols of the form {1000/n}, where n is an integer between 2 and 500 that is coprime to 1,000. There are also 300 regular star figures in the remaining cases.  For example, the regular {1000/499} star polygon is constructed by 1000 nearly radial edges. Each star vertex has an internal angle of 0.36 degrees.[10]  {1000/499} Star polygon 1000-499.svg Star polygon 1000-499 center.png Central area with moiré patterns See also Myriagon Megagon Philosophy of Mind Philosophy of Language References  Meditation VI by Descartes (English translation).  Sepkoski, David (2005). "Nominalism and constructivism in seventeenth-century mathematical philosophy". Historia Mathematica. 32: 33–59. doi:10.1016/j.hm.2003.09.002.  Immanuel Kant, "On a Discovery," trans. Henry Allison, in Theoretical Philosophy After 1791, ed. Henry Allison and Peter Heath, Cambridge UP, 2002 [Akademie 8:121]. Kant does not actually use a chiliagon as his example, instead using a 96-sided figure, but he is responding to the same question raised by Descartes.  David Hume, The Philosophical Works of David Hume, Volume 1, Black and Tait, 1826, p. 101.  Jonathan Francis Bennett (2001), Learning from Six Philosophers: Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, Volume 2, Oxford University Press, ISBN 0198250924, p. 53.  Henri Poincaré (1900) "Intuition and Logic in Mathematics" in William Bragg Ewald (ed) From Kant to Hilbert: A Source Book in the Foundations of Mathematics, Volume 2, Oxford University Press, 2007, ISBN 0198505361, p. 1015.  Roderick Chisholm, "The Problem of the Speckled Hen", Mind 51 (1942): pp. 368–373. "These problems are all descendants of Descartes's 'chiliagon' argument in the sixth of his Meditations" (Joseph Heath, Following the Rules: Practical Reasoning and Deontic Constraint, Oxford: OUP, 2008, p. 305, note 15).  The Symmetries of Things, Chapter 20  199 = 500 cases − 1 (convex) − 100 (multiples of 5) − 250 (multiples of 2) + 50 (multiples of 2 and 5)  0.36 = 180 (1 - 2 /(1000 / 499) ) = 180 ( 1 – 998 / 1000 ) = 180 ( 2 / 1000 ) = 180 / 500 chiliagon vte Polygons (List) Triangles Acute Equilateral Ideal IsoscelesObtuseRight Quadrilaterals Antiparallelogram Bicentric CyclicEquidiagonalEx-tangentialHarmonic Isosceles trapezoidKiteLambertOrthodiagonal Parallelogram Rectangle Right kite Rhombus Saccheri SquareTangentialTangential trapezoidTrapezoid By number of sides Monogon (1) Digon (2) Triangle (3) Quadrilateral (4) Pentagon (5) Hexagon (6) Heptagon (7) Octagon (8) Nonagon (Enneagon, 9) Decagon (10) Hendecagon (11) Dodecagon (12) Tridecagon (13) Tetradecagon (14) Pentadecagon (15) Hexadecagon (16) Heptadecagon (17) Octadecagon (18) Enneadecagon (19)Icosagon (20)Icosihenagon [de] (21)Icosidigon (22) Icositetragon (24) Icosihexagon (26) Icosioctagon (28) Triacontagon (30) Triacontadigon (32) Triacontatetragon (34) Tetracontagon (40) Tetracontadigon (42)Tetracontaoctagon (48)Pentacontagon (50) Pentacontahenagon [de] (51) Hexacontagon (60) Hexacontatetragon (64) Heptacontagon (70)Octacontagon (80) Enneacontagon (90) Enneacontahexagon (96) Hectogon (100) 120-gon257-gon360-gonChiliagon (1000) Myriagon (10000) 65537-gonMegagon (1000000) 4294967295-gon [ru; de]Apeirogon (∞) Star polygons Pentagram Hexagram Heptagram Octagram Enneagram Decagram Hendecagram Dodecagram Classes Concave Convex Cyclic Equiangular Equilateral Isogonal Isotoxal Pseudotriangle Regular Simple SkewStar-shaped Tangential Categories: Polygons1000 (number).

choice, v. rational choice.

commitment: Grice’s commitment to the 39 Articles. An utterer is committed to those and only those entities to which the bound variables of his utterance must be capable of referring in order that the utterance made be true.” Cf. Grice on substitutional quantification for his feeling Byzantine, and ‘gap’ sign in the analysis.

common-ground status assignment: Strwson and Wiggins view that this is only tentative for Grice. the regulations for common-ground assignment have to do with general rational constraints on conversation. Grice is clear in “Causal,” and as Strawson lets us know, he was already clear in “Introduction” when talking of a ‘pragmatic rule.’ Strawson states the rule in terms of making your conversational contribution the logically strongest possible. If we abide by an imperative of conversational helpfulness, enjoining the maximally giving and receiving of information and the influencing and being influenced by others in the institution of a decisions, the sub-imperative follows to the effect, ‘Thou shalt NOT make a weak move compared to the stronger one that thou canst truthfully make, and with equal or greater economy of means.’“Causal” provides a more difficult version, because it deals with non-extensional contexts where ‘strong’ need not be interpreted as ‘logical strength’ in terms of entailment. Common ground status assignment springs from the principle of conversational helpfulness or conversational benevolence. What would be the benevolent point of ‘informing’ your addressee what you KNOW your addressee already knows? It is not even CONCEPTUALLY possible. You are not ‘informing’ him if you are aware that he knows it. So, what Strawson later calls the principle of presumption of ignorance and the principle of the presumption of knowledge are relevant. There is a balance between the two. If Strawson asks Grice, “Is the king of France bald?” Grice is entitled to assume that Strawson thinks two things Grice will perceive as having been assigned a ‘common-ground’ status as uncontroversial topic not worth conversing about. First, Strawson thinks that there is one king. (∃x)Fx. Second, Strawson thinks that there is at most one king. (x)(y)((Fx.Fy)⊃ x=y). That the king is bald is NOT assigned common-ground status, because Grice cannot expect that Strawson thinks that Grice KNOWS that. Grice symbolises the common-ground status by means of subscripts. He also uses square-bracekts, so that anything within the scope of the square brackets is immune to controversy, or as Grice also puts it, conversationally _inert_: things we don’t talk about.

communicatum: By psi-transmission, something that belonged in the emissor becomes ‘common property,’ ‘communion’ has been achived. Now the recipient KNOWS that it is raining (shares the belief with the emissor) and IS GOING to bring that umbrella (has formed a desire). “Communication” is cognate with ‘communion,’ while conversation is cognate with ‘sex’! When Grice hightlights the ‘common ground’ in ‘communication’ he is being slightly rhetorical, so it is good when he weakens the claim from ‘common ground’ to ‘non-trivial.’ A: I’m going to the concert. My uncle’s brother went to that concert. The emissor cannot presume that his addressee KNEW that he had an unlce let alone that his uncle had a brother (the emissor’s father). But any expansion would trigger the wrong implicatum. One who likes ‘communication’ is refined Strawson (I’m using refined as J. Barnes does it, “turn Plato into refined Strawson”). Both in his rat-infested example and at the inaugural lecture at Oxford. Grice, for one, has given us reason to think that, with sufficient care, and far greater refinement than I have indicated, it is possible to expound such a concept of communication-intention or, as he calls it, utterer's meaning, which is proof against objection.  it is a commonplace that Grice belongs, as most philosophers of the twentieth century, to the movement of the linguistic turn. Short and Lewis have “commūnĭcare,” earlier “conmunicare,” f. communis, and thus sharing the prefix with “conversare.” Now “communis” is an interesting lexeme that Grice uses quite centrally in his idea of the ‘common ground’ – when a feature of discourse is deemed to have been assigned ‘common-ground status.’ “Communis” features the “cum-” prefix, commūnis (comoinis); f. “con” and root “mu-,” to bind; Sanscr. mav-; cf.: immunis, munus, moenia. The ‘communicatum’ (as used by Tammelo in  social philosophy) may well cover what Grice would call the total ‘significatio,’ or ‘significatum.’ Grice takes this seriously. Let us start then by examining what we mean by ‘linguistic,’ or ‘communication.’ It is curious that while most Griceians overuse ‘communicative’ as applied to ‘intention,’ Grice does not. Communicator’s intention, at most. This is the Peirce in Grice’s soul. Meaning provides an excellent springboard for Grice to centre his analysis on psychological or soul-y verbs as involving the agent and the first person: smoke only figuratively means fire, and the expression smoke only figuratively (or metabolically) means that there is fire. It is this or that utterer (say, Grice) who means, say, by uttering Where theres smoke theres fire, or ubi fumus, ibi ignis, that where theres smoke theres fire. A means something by uttering x, an utterance-token is roughly equivalent to utterer U intends the utterance of x to produce some effect in his addressee A by means of the recognition of this intention; and we may add that to ask what U means is to ask for a specification of the intended effect - though, of course, it may not always be possible to get a straight answer involving a that-clause, for example, a belief that  He does provide a more specific example involving the that-clause at a later stage. By uttering x, U means that-ψ­_b-dp ≡ (Ǝφ)(Ǝf)(Ǝc) U utters x  intending x to be such that anyone who has φ think that x has f, f is correlated in way c with ψ-ing that p, and (Ǝφ') U intends x to be such that anyone who has φ' think, via thinking that x has f and that f is correlated in way c with ψ-ing that p, that U ψ-s that p, and in view of (Ǝφ') U intending x to be such that anyone who has φ' think, via thinking that x has f, and f is correlated in way c with ψ-ing that p, that U ψ-s that p, U ψ-s that p, and, for some substituends of ψ_b-d, U utters x intending that, should there actually be anyone who has φ, he will, via thinking in view of (Ǝφ') U intending x to be such that anyone who has φ' think, via thinking that x has f, and  f is correlated in way c with ψ-ing that p, that U ψ-s that p, U ψ-s that p himself ψ that p, and it is not the case that, for some inference element E, U intends x to be such that anyone who has φ both rely on E in coming to ψ, or think that U ψ-s, that p and  think that (Ǝφ) U intends x to be such that anyone who has φ come to ψ (or think that U ψ-s) that p without relying on E. Besides St. John The Baptist, and Salome, Grice cites few Namess in Meaning. But he makes a point about Stevenson! For Stevenson, smoke means fire. Meaning develops out of an interest by Grice on the philosophy of Peirce. In his essays on Peirce, Grice quotes from many other authors, including, besides Peirce himself (!), Ogden, Richards, and Ewing, or A. C. Virtue is not a fire-shovel Ewing, as Grice calls him, and this or that cricketer. In the characteristic Oxonian fashion of a Lit. Hum., Grice has no intention to submit Meaning to publication. Publishing is vulgar. Bennett, however, guesses that Grice decides to publish it just a year after his Defence of a dogma. Bennett’s argument is that Defence of a dogma pre-supposes some notion of meaning. However, a different story may be told, not necessarily contradicting Bennetts. It is Strawson who submits the essay by Grice to The Philosophical Review (henceforth, PR) Strawson attends Grices talk on Meaning for The Oxford Philosophical Society, and likes it. Since In defence of a dogma was co-written with Strawson, the intention Bennett ascribes to Grice is Strawsons. Oddly, Strawson later provides a famous alleged counter-example to Grice on meaning in Intention and convention in speech acts, following J. O. Urmson’s earlier attack to the sufficiency of Grices analysans -- which has Grice dedicating a full James lecture (No. 5) to it. there is Strawsons rat-infested house for which it is insufficient. An interesting fact, that confused a few, is that Hart quotes from Grices Meaning in his critical review of Holloway for The Philosophical Quarterly. Hart quotes Grice pre-dating the publication of Meaning. Harts point is that Holloway should have gone to Oxford! In Meaning, Grice may be seen as a practitioner of ordinary-language philosophy: witness his explorations of the factivity (alla know, remember, or see) or lack thereof of various uses of to mean. The second part of the essay, for which he became philosophically especially popular, takes up an intention-based approach to semantic notions. The only authority Grice cites, in typical Oxonian fashion, is, via Ogden and Barnes, Stevenson, who, from The New World (and via Yale, too!) defends an emotivist theory of ethics, and making a few remarks on how to mean is used, with scare quotes, in something like a causal account (Smoke means fire.). After its publication Grices account received almost as many alleged counterexamples as rule-utilitarianism (Harrison), but mostly outside Oxford, and in The New World. New-World philosophers seem to have seen Grices attempt as reductionist and as oversimplifying. At Oxford, the sort of counterexample Grice received, before Strawson, was of the Urmson-type: refined, and subtle. I think your account leaves bribery behind. On the other hand, in the New World ‒ in what Grice calls the Latter-Day School of Nominalism, Quine is having troubles with empiricism. Meaning was repr. in various collections, notably in Philosophical Logic, ed. by Strawson. It should be remembered that it is Strawson who has the thing typed and submitted for publication. Why Meaning should be repr. in a collection on Philosophical Logic only Strawson knows. But Grice does say that his account may help clarify the meaning of entails! It may be Strawsons implicature that Parkinson should have repr. (and not merely credited) Meaning by Grice in his series for Oxford on The theory of meaning. The preferred quotation for Griceians is of course The Oxford Philosophical Society quote, seeing that Grice recalled the exact year when he gave the talk for the Philosophical Society at Oxford! It is however, the publication in The Philosophi, rather than the quieter evening at the Oxford Philosophical Society, that occasioned a tirade of alleged counter-examples by New-World philosophers. Granted, one or two Oxonians ‒ Urmson and Strawson ‒ fell in! Urmson criticises the sufficiency of Grices account, by introducing an alleged counter-example involving bribery. Grice will consider a way out of Urmsons alleged counter-example in his fifth Wiliam James Lecture, rightly crediting and thanking Urmson for this! Strawsons alleged counter-example was perhaps slightly more serious, if regressive. It also involves the sufficiency of Grices analysis. Strawsons rat-infested house alleged counter-example started a chain which required Grice to avoid, ultimately, any sneaky intention by way of a recursive clause to the effect that, for utterer U to have meant that p, all meaning-constitutive intentions should be above board. But why this obsession by Grice with mean? He is being funny. Spots surely dont mean, only mean.They dont have a mind. Yet Grice opens with a specific sample. Those spots mean, to the doctor, that you, dear, have measles. Mean? Yes, dear, mean, doctors orders. Those spots mean measles. But how does the doctor know? Cannot he be in the wrong? Not really, mean is factive, dear! Or so Peirce thought. Grice is amazed that Peirce thought that some meaning is factive. The hole in this piece of cloth means that a bullet went through is is one of Peirce’s examples. Surely, as Grice notes, this is an unhappy example. The hole in the cloth may well have caused by something else, or fabricated. (Or the postmark means that the letter went through the post.) Yet, Grice was having Oxonian tutees aware that Peirce was krypto-technical. Grice chose for one of his pre-Meaning seminars on Peirce’s general theory of signs, with emphasis on general, and the correspondence of Peirce and Welby. Peirce, rather than the Vienna circle, becomes, in vein with Grices dissenting irreverent rationalism, important as a source for Grices attempt to English Peirce. Grices implicature seems to be that Peirce, rather than Ayer, cared for the subtleties of meaning and sign, never mind a verificationist theory about them! Peirce ultra-Latinate-cum-Greek taxonomies have Grice very nervous, though. He knew that his students were proficient in the classics, but still. Grice thus proposes to reduce all of Peirceian divisions and sub-divisions (one sub-division too many) to mean. In the proceedings, he quotes from Ogden, Richards, and Ewing. In particular, Grice was fascinated by the correspondence of Peirce with Lady Viola Welby, as repr. by Ogden/Richards in, well, their study on the meaning of meaning. Grice thought the science of symbolism pretentious, but then he almost thought Lady Viola Welby slightly pretentious, too, if youve seen her; beautiful lady. It is via Peirce that Grice explores examples such as those spots meaning measles. Peirce’s obsession is with weathercocks almost as Ockham was with circles on wine-barrels. Old-World Grices use of New-World Peirce is illustrative, thus, of the Oxonian linguistic turn focused on ordinary language. While Peirce’s background was not philosophical, Grice thought it comical enough. He would say that Peirce is an amateur, but then he said the same thing about Mill, whom Grice had to study by heart to get his B. A. Lit. Hum.! Plus, as Watson commented, what is wrong with amateur? Give me an amateur philosopher ANY day, if I have to choose from professional Hegel! In finding Peirce krypo-technical, Grice is ensuing that his tutees, and indeed any Oxonian philosophy student (he was university lecturer) be aware that to mean should be more of a priority than this or that jargon by this or that (New World?) philosopher!? Partly! Grice wanted his students to think on their own, and draw their own conclusions! Grice cites Ewing, Ogden/Richards, and many others. Ewing, while Oxford-educated, had ended up at Cambridge (Scruton almost had him as his tutor) and written some points on Meaninglessness! Those spots mean measles. Grice finds Peirce krypto-technical and proposes to English him into an ordinary-language philosopher. Surely it is not important whether we consider a measles spot a sign, a symbol, or an icon. One might just as well find a doctor in London who thinks those spots symbolic. If Grice feels like Englishing Peirce, he does not altogether fail! meaning, reprints, of Meaning and other essays, a collection of reprints and offprints of Grices essays. Meaning becomes a central topic of at least two strands in Retrospective epilogue. The first strand concerns the idea of the centrality of the utterer. What Grice there calls meaning BY (versus meaning TO), i.e. as he also puts it, active or agents meaning. Surely he is right in defending an agent-based account to meaning. Peirce need not, but Grice must, because he is working with an English root, mean, that is only figurative applicable to non-agentive items (Smoke means rain). On top, Grice wants to conclude that only a rational creature (a person) can meanNN properly. Non-human animals may have a correlate. This is a truly important point for Grice since he surely is seen as promoting a NON-convention-based approach to meaning, and also defending from the charge of circularity in the non-semantic account of propositional attitudes. His final picture is a rationalist one. P₁ G wants to communicate about a danger to P₂. This presupposes there IS a danger (item of reality). Then P₁ G believes there is a danger, and communicates to P₂ G2 that there is a danger. This simple view of conversation as rational co-operation underlies Grices account of meaning too, now seen as an offshoot of philosophical psychology, and indeed biology, as he puts it. Meaning as yet another survival mechanism. While he would never use a cognate like significance in his Oxford Philosophical Society talk, Grice eventually starts to use such Latinate cognates at a later stage of his development. In Meaning, Grice does not explain his goal. By sticking with a root that the Oxford curriculum did not necessarily recognised as philosophical (amateur Peirce did!), Grice is implicating that he is starting an ordinary-language botanising on his own repertoire! Grice was amused by the reliance by Ewing on very Oxonian examples contra Ayer: Surely Virtue aint a fire-shovel is perfectly meaningful, and if fact true, if, Ill admit, somewhat misleading and practically purposeless at Cambridge. Again, the dismissal by Grice of natural meaning is due to the fact that natural meaning prohibits its use in the first person and followed by a that-clause. ‘I mean-n that p’ sounds absurd, no communication-function seems in the offing, there is no ‘sign for,’ as Woozley would have it. Grice found, with Suppes, all types of primacy (ontological, axiological, psychological) in utterers meaning. In Retrospective epilogue, he goes back to the topic, as he reminisces that it is his suggestion that there are two allegedly distinguishable meaning concepts, even if one is meta-bolical, which may be called natural meaning and non-natural meaning. There is this or that test (notably factivity-entailment vs. cancelation, but also scare quotes) which may be brought to bear to distinguish one concept from the other. We may, for example, inquire whether a particular occurrence of the predicate mean is factive or non-factive, i. e., whether for it to be true that [so and so] means that p, it does or does not have to be the case that it is true that p. Again, one may ask whether the use of quotation marks to enclose the specification of what is meant would be inappropriate or appropriate. If factivity, as in know, remember, and see, is present and quotation marks, oratio recta, are be inappropriate, we have a case of natural meaning. Otherwise the meaning involved is non-natural meaning. We may now ask whether there is a single overarching idea which lies behind both members of this dichotomy of uses to which the predicate meaning that seems to be Subjects. If there is such a central idea it might help to indicate to us which of the two concepts is in greater need of further analysis and elucidation and in what direction such elucidation should proceed. Grice confesses that he has only fairly recently come to believe that there is such an overarching idea and that it is indeed of some service in the proposed inquiry. The idea behind both uses of mean is that of consequence, or consequentia, as Hobbes has it. If x means that p, something which includes p or the idea of p, is a consequence of x. In the metabolic natural use of meaning that p, p, this or that consequence, is this or that state of affairs. In the literal, non-metabolic, basic, non-natural use of meaning that p, (as in Smith means that his neighbour’s three-year child is an adult), p, this or that consequence is this or that conception or complexus which involves some other conception. This perhaps suggests that of the two concepts it is, as it should, non-natural meaning which is more in need of further elucidation. It seems to be the more specialised of the pair, and it also seems to be the less determinate. We may, e. g., ask how this or that conception enters the picture. Or we may ask whether what enters the picture is the conception itself or its justifiability. On these counts Grice should look favorably on the idea that, if further analysis should be required for one of the pair, the notion of non-natural meaning would be first in line. There are factors which support the suitability of further analysis for the concept of non-natural meaning. Meaning_NN that p (non-natural meaning) does not look as if it Namess an original feature of items in the world, for two reasons which are possibly not mutually independent. One reason is that, given suitable background conditions, meaning, can be changed by fiat. The second reason is that the presence of meaning_NN is dependent on a framework provided by communication, if that is not too circular.  Communication is in the philosophical lexicon. Lewis and Short have “commūnĭcātĭo,” f. communicare,"(several times in Cicero, elsewhere rare), and as they did with negatio and they will with significatio, Short and Lewis render, unhelpfully, as a making common, imparting, communicating. largitio et communicatio civitatis;” “quaedam societas et communicatio utilitatum,” “consilii communicatio, “communicatio sermonis,” criminis cum pluribus; “communicatio nominum, i. e. the like appellation of several objects; “juris; “damni; In rhetorics, communicatio, trading on the communis, a figure, translating Grecian ἀνακοίνωσις, in accordance with which the utterer turns to his addressee, and, as it were, allows him to take part in the inquiry. It seems to Grice, then, at least reasonable and possibly even emphatically mandatory, to treat the claim that a communication vehicle, such as this and that expression means that p, in this transferred, metaphoric, or meta-bolic use of means that as being reductively analysable in terms of this or that feature of this or that utterer, communicator, or user of this or that expression. The use of meaning that as applied to this or that expression is posterior to and explicable through the utterer-oriented, or utterer-relativised use, i.e. involving a reference to this or that communicator or user of this or that expression. More specifically, one should license a metaphorical use of mean, where one allows the claim that this or that expression means that p, provided that this or that utterer, in this or that standard fashion, means that p, i.e. in terms of this or that souly statee toward this or that propositional complexus this or that utterer ntends, in a standardly fashion, to produce by his uttering this or that utterance. That this or that expression means (in this metaphorical use) that p is thus explicable either in terms of this or that souly state which is standardly intended to produce in this or that addressee A by this or that utterer of this or that expression, or in this or that souly staken up by this or that utterer toward this or that activity or action of this or that utterer of this or that expression. Meaning was in the air in Oxfords linguistic turn. Everybody was talking meaning. Grice manages to quote from Hares early “Mind” essay on the difference between imperatives and indicatives, also Duncan-Jones on the fugitive proposition,  and of course his beloved Strawson. Grice was also concerned by the fact that in the manoeuvre of the typical ordinary-language philosopher, there is a constant abuse of mean. Surely Grice wants to stick with the utterers meaning as the primary use. Expressions mean only derivatively. To do that, he chose Peirce to see if he could clarify it with meaning that. Grice knew that the polemic was even stronger in London, with Ogden and Lady Viola Welby. In the more academic Oxford milieu, Grice knew that a proper examination of meaning, would lead him, via Kneale and his researches on the history of semantics, to the topic of signification that obsessed the modistae (and their modus significandi). For what does L and S say about about this? This is Grice’s reply to popular Ogden. They want to know what the meaning of meaning is? Here is the Oxononian response by Grice, with a vengeance. Grice is not an animist nor a mentalist, even modest.  While he allows for natural phenomena to mean (smoke means fire), meaning is best ascribed to some utterer, where this meaning is nothing but the intentions behind his utterance. This is the fifth James lecture. Grice was careful enough to submit it to PR, since it is a strictly philosophical development of the views expressed in Meaning which Strawson had submitted on Grice’s behalf to the same Review and which had had a series of responses by various philosophers. Among these philosophers is Strawson himself in Intention and convention in the the theory of speech acts, also in PR. Grice quotes from very many other philosophers in this essay, including: Urmson, Stampe, Strawson, Schiffer, and Searle. Strawson is especially relevant since he started a series of alleged counter-examples with his infamous example of the rat-infested house. Grice particularly treasured Stampes alleged counter-example involving his beloved bridge! Avramides earns a D. Phil Oxon. on that, under Strawson! This is Grices occasion to address some of the criticisms ‒ in the form of alleged counter-examples, typically, as his later reflections on epagoge versus diagoge note  ‒ by Urmson, Strawson, and other philosophers associated with Oxford, such as Searle, Stampe, and Schiffer. The final analysandum is pretty complex (of the type that he did find his analysis of I am hearing a sound complex in Personal identity  ‒ hardly an obstacle for adopting it), it became yet another target of attack by especially New-World philosophers in the pages of Mind, Nous, and other journals, This is officially the fifth James lecture. Grice takes up the analysis of meaning he had presented way back at the Oxford Philosophical Society. Motivated mainly by the attack by Urmson and by Strawson in Intention and convention in speech acts, that offered an alleged counter-example to the sufficiency of Grices analysis, Grice ends up introducing so many intention that he almost trembled. He ends up seeing meaning as a value-paradeigmatic concept, perhaps never realisable in a sublunary way. But it is the analysis in this particular essay where he is at his formal best. He distinguishes between protreptic and exhibitive utterances, and also modes of correlation (iconic, conventional). He symbolises the utterer and the addressee, and generalises over the type of psychological state, attitude, or stance, meaning seems to range (notably indicative vs. imperative). He formalises the reflexive intention, and more importantly, the overtness of communication in terms of a self-referential recursive intention that disallows any sneaky intention to be brought into the picture of meaning-constitutive intentions. Grice thought he had dealt with Logic and conversation enough! So he feels of revising his Meaning. After all, Strawson had had the cheek to publish Meaning by Grice and then go on to criticize it in Intention and convention in speech acts. So this is Grices revenge, and he wins! He ends with the most elaborate theory of mean that an Oxonian could ever hope for. And to provoke the informalists such as Strawson (and his disciples at Oxford – led by Strawson) he pours existential quantifiers like the plague! He manages to quote from Urmson, whom he loved! No word on Peirce, though, who had originated all this! His implicature: Im not going to be reprimanted in informal discussion about my misreading Peirce at Harvard! The concluding note is about artificial substitutes for iconic representation, and meaning as a human institution. Very grand. This is Grices metabolical projection of utterers meaning to apply to anything OTHER than utterers meaning, notably a token of the utterers expression and a TYPE of the utterers expression, wholly or in part. Its not like he WANTS to do it, he NEEDS it to give an account of implicatum. The phrase utterer is meant to provoke. Grice thinks that speaker is too narrow. Surely you can mean by just uttering stuff! This is the sixth James lecture, as published in “Foundations of Language” (henceforth, “FL”), or “The foundations of language,” as he preferred. As it happens, it became a popular lecture, seeing that Searle selected this from the whole set for his Oxford reading in philosophy on the philosophy of language. It is also the essay cited by Chomsky in his influential Locke lectures. Chomsky takes Grice to be a behaviourist, even along Skinners lines, which provoked a reply by Suppes, repr. in PGRICE. In The New World, the H. P. is often given in a more simplified form. Grice wants to keep on playing. In Meaning, he had said x means that p is surely reducible to utterer U means that p. In this lecture, he lectures us as to how to proceed. In so doing he invents this or that procedure: some basic, some resultant. When Chomsky reads the reprint in Searles Philosophy of Language, he cries: Behaviourist! Skinnerian! It was Suppes who comes to Grices defence. Surely the way Grice uses expressions like resultant procedure are never meant in the strict behaviourist way. Suppes concludes that it is much fairer to characterise Grice as an intentionalist. Published in FL, ed. by Staal, Repr.in Searle, The Philosophy of Language, Oxford, the sixth James Lecture, FL, resultant procedure, basic procedure. Staal asked Grice to publish the sixth James lecture for a newish periodical publication of whose editorial board he was a member. The fun thing is Grice complied! This is Grices shaggy-dog story. He does not seem too concerned about resultant procedures. As he will ll later say, surely I can create Deutero-Esperanto and become its master! For Grice, the primacy is the idiosyncratic, particularized utterer in this or that occasion. He knows a philosopher craves for generality, so he provokes the generality-searcher with divisions and sub-divisions of mean. But his heart does not seem to be there, and he is just being overformalistic and technical for the sake of it. I am glad that Putnam, of all people, told me in an aside, you are being too formal, Grice. I stopped with symbolism since! Communication. This is Grice’s clearest anti-animist attack by Grice. He had joins Hume in mocking causing and willing: The decapitation of Charles I as willing Charles Is death. Language semantics alla Tarski. Grice know sees his former self. If he was obsessed, after Ayer, with mean, he now wants to see if his explanation of it (then based on his pre-theoretic intuition) is theoretically advisable in terms other than dealing with those pre-theoretical facts, i.e. how he deals with a lexeme like mean. This is a bit like Grice: implicatum, revisited. An axiological approach to meaning. Strictly a reprint of Grice, which should be the preferred citation. The date is given by Grice himself, and he knew! Grice also composed some notes on Remnants on meaning, by Schiffer. This is a bit like Grices meaning re-revisited. Schiffer had been Strawsons tutee at Oxford as a Rhode Scholar in the completion of his D. Phil. on Meaning, Clarendon. Eventually, Schiffer grew sceptic, and let Grice know about it! Grice did not find Schiffers arguments totally destructive, but saw the positive side to them. Schiffers arguments should remind any philosopher that the issues he is dealing are profound and bound to involve much elucidation before they are solved. This is a bit like Grice: implicatum, revisited. Meaning revisited (an ovious nod to Evelyn Waughs Yorkshire-set novel) is the title Grice chose for a contribution to a symposium at Brighton organised by Smith. Meaning revisited (although Grice has earlier drafts entitled Meaning and philosophical psychology) comprises three sections. In the first section, Grice is concerned with the application of his modified Occam’s razor now to the very lexeme, mean. Cf. How many senses does sense have? Cohen: The Senses of Senses. In the second part, Grice explores an evolutionary model of creature construction reaching a stage of non-iconic representation. Finally, in the third section, motivated to solve what he calls a major problem ‒ versus the minor problem concerning the transition from the meaning by the utterer to the meaning by the expression. Grice attempts to construct meaning as a value-paradeigmatic notion. A version was indeed published in the proceedings of the Brighton symposium, by Croom Helm, London. Grice has a couple of other drafts with variants on this title: philosophical psychology and meaning, psychology and meaning. He keeps, meaningfully, changing the order. It is not arbitrary that the fascinating exploration by Grice is in three parts. In the first, where he applies his Modified Occams razor to mean, he is revisiting Stevenson. Smoke means fire and I mean love, dont need different senses of mean. Stevenson is right when using scare quotes for smoke ‘meaning’ fire utterance. Grice is very much aware that that, the rather obtuse terminology of senses, was exactly the terminology he had adopted in both Meaning and the relevant James lectures (V and VI) at Harvard! Now, its time to revisit and to echo Graves, say, goodbye to all that! In the second part he applies Pology. While he knows his audience is not philosophical ‒ it is not Oxford ‒ he thinks they still may get some entertainment! We have a P feeling pain, simulating it, and finally uttering, I am in pain. In the concluding section, Grice becomes Plato. He sees meaning as an optimum, i.e. a value-paradeigmatic notion introducing value in its guise of optimality. Much like Plato thought circle works in his idiolect. Grice played with various titles, in the Grice Collection. Theres philosophical psychology and meaning. The reason is obvious. The lecture is strictly divided in sections, and it is only natural that Grice kept drafts of this or that section in his collection. In WOW Grice notes that he re-visited his Meaning re-visited at a later stage, too! And he meant it! Surely, there is no way to understand the stages of Grice’s development of his ideas about meaning without Peirce! It is obvious here that Grice thought that mean two figurative or metabolical extensions of use. Smoke means fire and Smoke means smoke. The latter is a transferred use in that impenetrability means lets change the topic if Humpty-Dumpty m-intends that it and Alice are to change the topic. Why did Grice feel the need to add a retrospective epilogue? He loved to say that what the “way of words” contains is neither his first, nor his last word. So trust him to have some intermediate words to drop. He is at his most casual in the very last section of the epilogue. The first section is more of a very systematic justification for any mistake the reader may identify in the offer. The words in the epilogue are thus very guarded and qualificatory. Just one example about our focus: conversational implicate and conversation as rational co-operation. He goes back to Essay 2, but as he notes, this was hardly the first word on the principle of conversational helpfulness, nor indeed the first occasion where he actually used implicature. As regards co-operation, the retrospective epilogue allows him to expand on a causal phrasing in Essay 2, “purposive, indeed rational.” Seeing in retrospect how the idea of rationality was the one that appealed philosophers most – since it provides a rationale and justification for what is otherwise an arbitrary semantic proliferation. Grice then distinguishes between the thesis that conversation is purposive, and the thesis that conversation is rational. And, whats more, and in excellent Griceian phrasing, there are two theses here, too. One thing is to see conversation as rational, and another, to use his very phrasing, as rational co-operation! Therefore, when one discusses the secondary literature, one should be attentive to whether the author is referring to Grices qualifications in the Retrospective epilogue. Grice is careful to date some items. However, since he kept rewriting, one has to be careful. These seven folder contain the material for the compilation. Grice takes the opportunity of the compilation by Harvard of his WOW, representative of the mid-60s, i. e. past the heyday of ordinary-language philosophy, to review the idea of philosophical progress in terms of eight different strands which display, however, a consistent and distinctive unity. Grice keeps playing with valediction, valedictory, prospective and retrospective, and the different drafts are all kept in The Grice Papers. The Retrospective epilogue, is divided into two sections. In the first section, he provides input for his eight strands, which cover not just meaning, and the assertion-implication distinction to which he alludes to in the preface, but for more substantial philosophical issues like the philosophy of perception, and the defense of common sense realism versus the sceptial idealist. The concluding section tackles more directly a second theme he had idenfitied in the preface, which is a methodological one, and his long-standing defence of ordinary-language philosophy. The section involves a fine distinction between the Athenian dialectic and the Oxonian dialectic, and tells the tale about his fairy godmother, G*. As he notes, Grice had dropped a few words in the preface explaining the ordering of essays in the compilation. He mentions that he hesitated to follow a suggestion by Bennett that the ordering of the essays be thematic and chronological. Rather, Grice chooses to publish the whole set of seven James lectures, what he calls the centerpiece, as part I. II, the explorations in semantics and metaphysics, is organised more or less thematically, though. In the Retrospective epilogue, Grice takes up this observation in the preface that two ideas or themes underlie his Studies: that of meaning, and assertion vs. implication, and philosophical methodology. The Retrospective epilogue is thus an exploration on eight strands he identifies in his own philosophy. Grices choice of strand is careful. For Grice, philosophy, like virtue, is entire. All the strands belong to the same knit, and therefore display some latitudinal, and, he hopes, longitudinal unity, the latter made evidence by his drawing on the Athenian dialectic as a foreshadow of the Oxonian dialectic to come, in the heyday of the Oxford school of analysis, when an interest in the serious study of ordinary language had never been since and will never be seen again. By these two types of unity, Grice means the obvious fact that all branches of philosophy (philosophy of language, or semantics, philosophy of perception, philosophical psychology, metaphysics, axiology, etc.) interact and overlap, and that a historical regard for ones philosophical predecessors is a must, especially at Oxford. Why is Grice obsessed with asserting? He is more interested, technically, in the phrastic, or dictor. Grice sees a unity, indeed, equi-vocality, in the buletic-doxastic continuum. Asserting is usually associated with the doxastic. Since Grice is always ready to generalise his points to cover the buletic (recall his Meaning, “theres by now no reason to stick to informative cases,”), it is best to re-define his asserting in terms of the phrastic. This is enough of a strong point. As Hare would agree, for emotivists like Barnes, say, an utterance of buletic force may not have any content whatsoever. For Grice, there is always a content, the proposition which becomes true when the action is done and the desire is fulfilled or satisfied. Grice quotes from Bennett. Importantly, Grice focuses on the assertion/non-assertion distinction. He overlooks the fact that for this or that of his beloved imperative utterance, asserting is out of the question, but explicitly conveying that p is not.  He needs a dummy to stand for a psychological or souly state, stance, or attitude of either boule or doxa, to cover the field of the utterer mode-neutrally conveying explicitly that his addressee A is to entertain that p. The explicatum or explicitum sometimes does the trick, but sometimes it does not. It is interesting to review the Names index to the volume, as well as the Subjects index. This is a huge collection, comprising 14 folders. By contract, Grice was engaged with Harvard, since it is the President of the College that holds the copyrights for the James lectures. The title Grice eventually chooses for his compilation of essays, which goes far beyond the James, although keeping them as the centerpiece, is a tribute to Locke, who, although obsessed with his idealist and empiricist new way of ideas, leaves room for both the laymans and scientists realist way of things, and, more to the point, for this or that philosophical semiotician to offer this or that study in the way of words. Early in the linguistic turn minor revolution, the expression the new way of words, had been used derogatorily. WOW is organised in two parts: Logic and conversation and the somewhat pretentiously titled Explorations in semantics and metaphysics, which offers commentary around the centerpiece. It also includes a Preface and a very rich and inspired Retrospective epilogue. From part I, the James lectures, only three had not been previously published. The first unpublished lecture is Prolegomena, which really sets the scene, and makes one wonder what the few philosophers who quote from The logic of grammar could have made from the second James lecture taken in isolation. Grice explores Aristotle’s “to alethes”: “For the true and the false exist with respect to synthesis and division (peri gar synthesin kai diaireisin esti to pseudos kai to alethes).” Aristotle insists upon the com-positional form of truth in several texts: cf. De anima, 430b3 ff.: “in truth and falsity, there is a certain composition (en hois de kai to pseudos kai to alethes, synthesis tis)”; cf. also Met. 1027b19 ff.: the true and the false are with respect to (peri) composition and decomposition (synthesis kai diaresis).” It also shows that Grices style is meant for public delivery, rather than reading. The second unpublished lecture is Indicative conditionals. This had been used by a few philosophers, such as Gazdar, noting that there were many mistakes in the typescript, for which Grice is not to be blamed. The third is on some models for implicature. Since this Grice acknowledges is revised, a comparison with the original handwritten version of the final James lecture retrieves a few differences From Part II, a few essays had not been published before, but Grice, nodding to the longitudinal unity of philosophy, is very careful and proud to date them. Commentary on the individual essays is made under the appropriate dates. Philosophical correspondence is quite a genre. Hare would express in a letter to the Librarian for the Oxford Union, “Wiggins does not want to be understood,” or in a letter to Bennett that Williams is the worse offender of Kantianism! It was different with Grice. He did not type. And he wrote only very occasionally! These are four folders with general correspondence, mainly of the academic kind. At Oxford, Grice would hardly keep a correspondence, but it was different with the New World, where academia turns towards the bureaucracy. Grice is not precisely a good, or reliable, as The BA puts it, correspondent. In the Oxford manner, Grice prefers a face-to-face interaction, any day. He treasures his Saturday mornings under Austins guidance, and he himself leads the Play Group after Austins demise, which, as Owen reminisced, attained a kind of cult status. Oxford is different. As a tutorial fellow in philosophy, Grice was meant to tutor his students; as a University Lecturer he was supposed to lecture sometimes other fellowss tutees! Nothing about this reads: publish or perish! This is just one f. containing Grices own favourite Griceian references. To the historian of analytic philosophy, it is of particular interest. It shows which philosophers Grice respected the most, and which ones the least. As one might expect, even on the cold shores of Oxford, as one of Grices tutees put it, Grice is cited by various Oxford philosophers. Perhaps the first to cite Grice in print is his tutee Strawson, in “Logical Theory.” Early on, Hart quotes Grice on meaning in his review in The Philosophical Quarterly of Holloways Language and Intelligence before Meaning had been published. Obviously, once Grice and Strawson, In defense of a dogma and Grice, Meaning are published by The Philosophical Review, Grice is discussed profusely. References to the implicatum start to appear in the literature at Oxford in the mid-1960s, within the playgroup, as in Hare and Pears. It is particularly intriguing to explore those philosophers Grice picks up for dialogue, too, and perhaps arrange them alphabetically, from Austin to Warnock, say. And Griceian philosophical references, Oxonian or other, as they should, keep counting! The way to search the Grice Papers here is using alternate keywords, notably “meaning.” “Meaning” s. II, “Utterer’s meaning and intentions,” s. II, “Utterer’s meaning, sentence-meaning, and word meaning,” s. II, “Meaning revisited,” s. II. – but also “Meaning and psychology,” s. V, c.7-ff.  24-25. While Grice uses “signification,” and lectured on Peirce’s “signs,” “Peirce’s general theory of signs,” (s. V, c. 8-f. 29), he would avoid such pretentiously sounding expressions. Searching under ‘semantic’ and ‘semantics’ (“Grammar and semantics,” c. 7-f. 5; “Language semantics,” c. 7-f.20, “Basic Pirotese, sentence semantics and syntax,” c. 8-f. 30, “Semantics of children’s language,” c. 9-f. 10, “Sentence semantics” (c. 9-f. 11); “Sentence semantics and propositional complexes,” c. 9-f.12, “Syntax and semantics,” c. 9-ff. 17-18) may help, too. Folder on Schiffer (“Schiffer,” c. 9-f. 9), too.

complexum: Vide the altogether nice girl, and the one-at-a-time sailor. The topic is essential in seeing Grice within the British empiricist tradition. Empiricists always loved a simplex, like ‘red.’ In his notes on ‘Meaning’ and “Peirce,’ Grice notes that for a ‘simplex’ like “red,” the best way to deal with it is via a Russellian function, ‘x is red.’ The opposite of ‘simplex’ is of course a ‘complexum.’ hile Grice does have an essay on the ‘complexum,’ he is mostly being jocular. His dissection of the proposition proceds by considering ‘the a,’ and its denotatum, or reference, and ‘is the b,’ which involves then the predication. This is Grice’s shaggy-dog story. Once we have ‘the dog is shaggy,’ we have a ‘complexum,’ and we can say that the utterer means, by uttering ‘Fido is shaggy,’ that the dog is hairy-coated. Simple, right? It’s the jocular in Grice. He is joking on philosophers who look at those representative of the linguistic turn, and ask, “So what do you have to say about reference and predication,’ and Grice comes up with an extra-ordinary analysis of what is to believe that the dog is hairy-coat, and communicating it. In fact, the ‘communicating’ is secondary. Once Grice has gone to metabolitical extension of ‘mean’ to apply to the expression, communication becomes secondary in that it has to be understood in what Grice calls the ‘atenuated’ usage involving this or that ‘readiness’ to have this or that procedure, basic or resultant, in one’s repertoire! Bealer is one of Grices most brilliant tutees in the New World. The Grice collection contains a full f. of correspondence with Bealer. Bealer refers to Grice in his influential Clarendon essay on content. Bealer is concerned with how pragmatic inference may intrude in the ascription of a psychological, or souly, state, attitude, or stance. Bealer loves to quote from Grice on definite descriptions in Russell and in the vernacular, the implicature being that Russell is impenetrable! Bealers mentor is Grices close collaborator Myro, so he knows what he is talking about. Grice explored the matter of subperception at Oxford only with G. J. Warnock. Refs.: The main reference is in ‘Reply to Richards.’ But there is “Sentence semantics and propositional complexes,” c. 9-f. 12, BANC.

conatum: Aristotle distinguishes three types of living beings: vegetables, φυτά, which possess only the ability to nourish themselves τὸ θϱεπτιϰόν; animals, ζαῷ, which possess the faculty of sensing τὸ αἰσθητιϰόν, which opens onto that of desiring, τὸ ὀϱεϰτιϰόν, to orektikon, (desdideratum); and man and — he says—any other similar or superior being, who possess in addition the ability to think, “τὸ διανοητιϰόν τε ϰαὶ νοῦς.” -- De An., 414a 29-b.orme,  the technical Stoic definition of πάθος, viz. as a particular kind of conation, or impulse (ορμή). ... 4 ' This definition (amorem ipsum conatum amicitiae faeiendae ex ... emotion and moral self-management in Galen's philosophical psychology', ..cōnātum , i, usu. in plur.: cōnāta , ōrum, n., v. conor.. The term is used by an the Wilde Reader at Oxford, that Grice once followed – until he became a neo-Prichardian instead.(philosophy) The power or act which directs or impels to effort of any kind, whether muscular or psychical. quotations 1899, George Frederick Stout, A Manual of Psychology, page 234:Any pleasing sense-experience, when it has once taken place, will, on subsequent occasions, give rise to a conation, when its conditions are only partially repeated...

conceptum: Grice obviously uses Frege’s notion of a ‘concept.’ One of Grice’s metaphysical routines is meant to produce a logical construction of a concept or generate a new concept. Aware of the act/product distinction, Grice distinguishes between the conceptum, or concept, and the conception, or conceptio. Grice allows that ‘not’ may be a ‘concept,’ so he is not tied to the ‘equine’ idea by Frege of the ‘horse.’ Since an agent can fail to conceive that his neighbour’s three-year old is an adult, Grice accepts that ‘conceives’ may take a ‘that’-clause. In ‘ordinary’ language, one does not seem to refer, say, to the concept that e = mc2, but that may be a failure or ‘ordinary’ language. In the canonical cat-on-the-mat, we have Grice conceiving that the cat is on the mat, and also having at least four concepts: the concept of ‘cat,’ the concept of ‘mat,’ the concept of ‘being on,’ and the concept of the cat being on the mat.

conditionalis: “This is an interesting Latinism,” as Grice puts it. For those in the know, it’s supposed to translate ‘hypothetical,’ that Grice also uses. But literally, the transliteration of ‘hypothetica’ is ‘sub-positio,’ i.e. ‘suppositio,’ so infamous in the Dark Ages! So one has to be careful. For some reason, Boethius disliked ‘suppositio,’ and preferred to add to the Latinate philosophical vocabulary, with ‘conditionalis,’ the hypothetical, versus the categoric, become the ‘conditionale.’ And the standard was not the Diodoran, but the Philonian, also known, after Whitehead, as the ‘implicatio materialis.’ While this sounds scholastic, it isn’t. Cicero may have used ‘implicatio materialis.’ But Whitehead’s and Russell’s motivation is a different one. They start with the ‘material’, by which they mean a proposition WITH A TRUTH VALUE. For implication that does not have this restriction, they introduce ‘implicatio formalis,’ or ‘formal implication.’ In their adverbial ways, it goes p formally implies q.  trictly, propositio conditionalis: vel substitutive, versus propositio praedicativa in Apuleius.  Classical Latin condicio was confused in Late Latin with conditio "a making," from conditus, past participle of condere "to put together." The sense evolution in Latin apparently was from "stipulation" to "situation, mode of being." Grice lists ‘if’ as the third binary functor in his response to Strawson. The relations between “if” and “⊃” have already, but only in part, been discussed. 1 The sign “⊃” is called the Material Implication sign a name I shall consider later. Its meaning is given by the rule that any statement of the form ‘p⊃q’ is false in the case in which the first of its constituent statements is true and the second false, and is true in every other case considered in the system; i. e., the falsity of the first constituent statement or the truth of the second are, equally, sufficient conditions of the truth of a statement of material implication ; the combination of truth in the first with falsity in the second is the single, necessary and sufficient, condition (1 Ch. 2, S. 7) of its falsity. The standard or primary -- the importance of this qualifying phrase can scarcely be overemphasized. There are uses of “if … then … ”  which do not answer to the description given here,, or to any other descriptions given in this chapter -- use of an  “if … then …” sentence, on the other hand, we saw to be in circumstances where, not knowing whether some statement which could be made by the use of a sentence corresponding in a certain way to the first clause of the hypothetical is true or not, or believing it to be false, we nevertheless consider that a step in reasoning from that statement to a statement related in a similar way to the second clause would be a sound or reasonable step ; the second statement also being one of whose truth we are in doubt, or which we believe to be false. Even in such circumstances as these we may sometimes hesitate to apply the word ‘true’ to hypothetical statements (i.e., statements which could be made by the use of “if ... then …,” in its standard significance), preferring to call them reasonable or well-founded ; but if we apply ‘true’ to them at all, it will be in such circumstances as these. Now one of the sufficient conditions of the truth of a statement of material implication may very well be fulfilled without the conditions for the truth, or reasonableness, of the corresponding hypothetical statement being fulfilled ; i.e., a statement of the form ‘p⊃q’ does not entail the corresponding statement of the form “if p then q.” But if we are prepared to accept the hypothetical statement, we must in consistency be prepared to deny the conjunction of the statement corresponding to the first clause of the sentence used to make the hypothetical statement with the negation of the statement corresponding to its second clause ; i.e., a statement of the form “if p then q” does entail the corresponding statement of the form ‘p⊃q.’ The force of “corresponding” needs elucidation. Consider the three following very ordinary specimens of hypothetical sentences. If the Germans had invaded England in 1940, they would have won the war. If Jones were in charge, half the staff would have been dismissed. If it rains, the match will be cancelled. The sentences which could be used to make statements corresponding in the required sense to the subordinate clauses can be ascertained by considering what it is that the speaker of each hypothetical sentence must (in general) be assumed either to be in doubt about or to believe to be not the case. Thus, for (1) to (8), the corresponding pairs of sentences are as follows. The Germans invaded England in 1940; they won the war. Jones is in charge; half the staff has been dismissed. It will rain; the match will be cancelled. Sentences which could be used to make the statements of material implication corresponding to the hypothetical statements made by these sentences can now be framed from these pairs of sentences as follows. The Germans invaded England in 1940 ⊃ they won the war. Jones is in charge ⊃ half the staff has been, dismissed. It will rain ⊃ the match will be cancelled. The very fact that these verbal modifications are necessary, in order to obtain from the clauses of the hypothetical sentence the clauses of the corresponding material implication sentence is itself a symptom of the radical difference between hypothetical statements and truth-functional statements. Some detailed differences are also evident from these examples. The falsity of a statement made by the use of ‘The Germans invaded England in 1940’ or ‘Jones is in charge’ is a sufficient condition of the truth of the corresponding statements made by the use of (Ml) and (M2) ; but not, of course, of the corresponding statements made by the use of (1) and (2). Otherwise, there would normally be no point in using sentences like (1) and (2) at all; for these sentences would normally carry – but not necessarily: one may use the pluperfect or the imperfect subjunctive when one is simply working out the consequences of an hypothesis which one may be prepared eventually to accept -- in the tense or mood of the verb, an implication of the utterer's belief in the falsity of the statements corresponding to the clauses of the hypothetical. It is not raining is sufficient to verify a statement made by the use of (MS), but not a statement made by the use of (3). Its not raining Is also sufficient to verify a statement made by the use of “It will rain ⊃ the match will not be cancelled.” The formulae ‘p revise ⊃q’ and ‘q revise⊃ q' are consistent with one another, and the joint assertion of corresponding statements of these forms is equivalent to the assertion of the corresponding statement of the form * *-~p. But “If it rains, the match will be cancelled” is inconsistent with “If it rains, the match will not be cancelled,” and their joint assertion in the same context is self-contradictory. Suppose we call the statement corresponding to the first clause of a sentence used to make a hypothetical statement the antecedent of the hypothetical statement; and the statement corresponding to the second clause, its consequent. It is sometimes fancied that whereas the futility of identifying conditional statements with material implications is obvious in those cases where the implication of the falsity of the antecedent is normally carried by the mood or tense of the verb (e.g., (I) or (2)), there is something to be said for at least a partial identification in cases where no such implication is involved, i.e., where the possibility of the truth of both antecedent and consequent is left open (e.g., (3). In cases of the first kind (‘unfulfilled’ or ‘subjunctive’ conditionals) our attention is directed only to the last two lines of the truth-tables for * p ⊃ q ', where the antecedent has the truth-value, falsity; and the suggestion that ‘~p’ entails ‘if p, then q’ is felt to be obviously wrong. But in cases of the second kind we may inspect also the first two lines, for the possibility of the antecedent's being fulfilled is left open; and the suggestion that ‘p . q’ entails ‘if p, then q’ is not felt to be obviously wrong. This is an illusion, though engendered by a reality. The fulfilment of both antecedent and consequent of a hypothetical statement does not show that the man who made the hypothetical statement was right; for the consequent might be fulfilled as a result of factors unconnected with, or in spite of, rather than because of, the fulfilment of the antecedent. We should be prepared to say that the man who made the hypothetical statement was right only if we were also prepared to say that the fulfilment of the antecedent was, at least in part, the explanation of the fulfilment of the consequent. The reality behind the illusion is complex : en. 3 it is, partly, the fact that, in many cases, the fulfilment of both antecedent and consequent may provide confirmation for the view that the existence of states of affairs like those described by the antecedent is a good reason for expecting states of affairs like those described by the consequent ; and it is, partly, the fact that a man whosays, for example, 4 If it rains, the match will be cancelled * makes a prediction (viz.. that the match will be cancelled) under a proviso (viz., that it rains), and that the cancellation of the match because of the rain therefore leads us to say, not only that the reasonableness of the prediction was confirmed, but also that the prediction itself was confirmed. Because a statement of the form “p⊃q” does not entail the corresponding statement of the form ' if p, then q ' (in its standard employment), we shall expect to find, and have found, a divergence between the rules for '⊃' and the rules for ' if J (in its standard employment). Because ‘if p, then q’ does entail ‘p⊃q,’ we shall also expect to find some degree of parallelism between the rules; for whatever is entailed by ‘p "3 q’ will be entailed by ‘if p, then q,’ though not everything which entails ‘p⊃q’ will entail ‘if p, then q.’ Indeed, we find further parallels than those which follow simply from the facts that ‘if p, then q’ entails ‘p⊃q’ and that entailment is transitive. To laws (19)-(23) inclusive we find no parallels for ‘if.’ But for (15) (p⊃j).JJ⊃? (16) (P ⊃q).~qZ)~p (17) p'⊃q s ~q1)~p (18) (?⊃j).(? ⊃r) ⊃ (p⊃r) we find that, with certain reservations, 1 the following parallel laws hold good : (1 The reservations are important. It is, e. g., often impossible to apply entailment-rule (iii) directly without obtaining incorrect or absurd results. Some modification of the structure of the clauses of the hypothetical is commonly necessary. But formal logic gives us no guide as to which modifications are required. If we apply rule (iii) to our specimen hypothetical sentences, without modifying at all the tenses or moods of the individual clauses, we obtain expressions which are scarcely English. If we preserve as nearly as possible the tense-mood structure, in the simplest way consistent with grammatical requirements, we obtain the sentences : If the Germans had not won the war, they would not have invaded England in 1940.) If half the staff had not been dismissed, Jones would not be in charge. If the match is not cancelled, it will not rain. But these sentences, so far from being logically equivalent to the originals, have in each case a quite different sense. It is possible, at least in some such cases, to frame sentences of more or less the appropriate pattern for which one can imagine a use and which do stand in the required logical relationship to the original sentences (e.g., ‘If it is not the case that half the staff has been dismissed, then Jones can't be in charge;’ or ‘If the Germans did not win the war, it's only because they did not invade England in 1940;’ or even (should historical evidence become improbably scanty), ‘If the Germans did not win the war, it can't be true that they invaded England in 1940’). These changes reflect differences in the circumstances in which one might use these, as opposed to the original, sentences. Thus the sentence beginning ‘If Jones were in charge …’ would normally, though not necessarily, be used by a man who antecedently knows that Jones is not in charge : the sentence beginning ‘If it's not the case that half the staff has been dismissed …’ by a man who is working towards the conclusion that Jones is not in charge. To say that the sentences are nevertheless logically equivalent is to point to the fact that the grounds for accepting either, would, in different circumstances, have been grounds for accepting the soundness of the move from ‘Jones is in charge’ to ‘Half the staff has been dismissed.’)  (i) (if p, then q; and p)^q (ii) (if p, then qt and not-g) Dnot-j? (iii) (if p, then f) ⊃ (if not-0, then not-j?) (iv) (if p, then f ; and iff, then r) ⊃(if j>, then r) (One must remember that calling the formulae (i)-(iv) is the same as saying that, e.g., in the case of (iii), c if p, then q ' entails 4 if not-g, then not-j> '.) And similarly we find that, for some steps which would be invalid for 4 if ', there are corresponding steps that would be invalid for “⊃,”  e. g.  (p^q).q :. p are invalid inference-patterns, and so are if p, then q ; and q /. p if p, then ; and not-j? /. not-f .The formal analogy here may be described by saying that neither * p 13 q ' nor * if j?, then q * is a simply convertible formula. We have found many laws (e.g., (19)-(23)) which hold for “⊃” and not for “if.” As an example of a law which holds for “if,”  but not for “⊃,” we may give the analytic formula “ ~[(if p, then q) * (if p, then not-g)]’. The corresponding formula 4 ~[(P 3 ?) * (j? 3 ~?}]’ is not analytic, but (el (28)) is equivalent to the contingent formula ‘~~p.’ The rules to the effect that formulae such as (19)-{23) are analytic are sometimes referred to as ‘paradoxes of implication.’ This is a misnomer. If ‘⊃’ is taken as identical either with ‘entails’ or, more widely, with ‘if  ... then …’ in its standard use, the rules are not paradoxical, but simply incorrect. If ‘⊃’ is given the meaning it has in the system of truth functions, the rules are not paradoxical, but simple and platitudinous consequences of the meaning given to the symbol. Throughout this section, I have spoken of a ‘primary or standard’ use of “if … then …,” or “if,” of which the main characteristics were: that for each hypothetical statement made by this use of “if,” there could be made just one statement which would be the antecedent of the hypothetical and just one statement which would be its consequent; that the hypothetical statement is acceptable (true, reasonable) if the antecedent statement, if made or accepted, would, in the circumstances, be a good ground or reason for accepting the consequent statement; and that the making of the hypothetical statement carries the implication either of uncertainty about, or of disbelief in, the fulfilment of both antecedent and consequent. (1 Not all uses of * if ', however, exhibit all these characteristics. In particular, there is a use which has an equal claim to rank as standard and which is closely connected with the use described, but which does not exhibit the first characteristic and for which the description of the remainder must consequently be modified. I have in mind what are sometimes called 'variable' or 'general’ hypothetical : e.g., ‘lf ice is left in the sun, it melts,’ ‘If the side of a triangle is produced, the exterior angle is equal to the sum of the two interior and opposite angles ' ; ' If a child is very strictly disciplined in the nursery, it will develop aggressive tendencies in adult life,’ and so on. To a statement made by the use of a sentence such as these there corresponds no single pair of statements which are, respectively, its antecedent and consequent. On the other 1 There is much more than this to be said about this way of using ‘if;’ in particular, about the meaning of the question whether the antecedent would be a good ground or reason for accepting the consequent and about the exact way in which this question is related to the question of whether the hypothetical is true {acceptable, reasonable) or not hand, for every such statement there is an indefinite number of non-general hypothetical statements which might be called exemplifications, applications, of the variable hypothetical; e.g., a statement made by the use of the sentence ‘If this piece of ice is left in the sun, it will melt.’ To the subject of variable hypothetical I may return later. 1 Two relatively uncommon uses of ‘if’ may be illustrated respectively by the sentences ‘If he felt embarrassed, he showed no signs of it’ and ‘If he has passed his exam, I’m a Dutchman (I'll eat my hat, &c.)’ The sufficient and necessary condition of the truth of a statement made by the first is that the man referred to showed no sign of embarrassment. Consequently, such a statement cannot be treated either as a standard hypothetical or as a material implication. Examples of the second kind are sometimes erroneously treated as evidence that ‘if’ does, after all, behave somewhat as ‘⊃’ behaves. The evidence for this is, presumably, the facts (i) that there is no connexion between antecedent and consequent; (ii) that the consequent is obviously not (or not to be) fulfilled ; (iii) that the intention of the speaker is plainly to give emphatic expression to the conviction that the antecedent is not fulfilled either ; and (iv) the fact that “(p ⊃ q) . ~q” entails “~p.” But this is a strange piece of logic. For, on any possible interpretation, “if p then q” has, in respect of (iv), the same logical powers as ‘p⊃q;’ and it is just these logical powers that we are jokingly (or fantastically) exploiting. It is the absence of connexion referred to in (i) that makes it a quirk, a verbal flourish, an odd use of ‘if.’ If hypothetical statements were material implications, the statements would be not a quirkish oddity, but a linguistic sobriety and a simple truth. Finally, we may note that ‘if’  can be employed not simply in making statements, but in, e.g., making provisional announcements of intention (e.g., ‘If it rains, I shall stay at home’) which, like unconditional announcements of intention, we do not call true or false but describe in some other way. If the man who utters the quoted sentence leaves home in spite of the rain, we do not say that what he said was false, though we might say that he lied (never really intended to stay in) ; or that he changed his mind. There are further uses of ‘if’ which I shall not discuss. 1 v. ch. 7, I. The safest way to read the material implication sign is, perhaps, ‘not both … and not …’ The material equivalence sign ‘≡’ has the meaning given by the following definition : p q =df=⊃/'(p⊃ff).(sOj)' and the phrase with which it is sometimes identified, viz., ‘if and only if,’ has the meaning given by the following definition: ‘p if and only if q’ =df ‘if p then g, and if q then p.’ Consequently, the objections which hold against the identification of ‘p⊃q” with ‘if p then q’ hold with double force against the identification of “p≡q’ with ‘p if and only if q.’ ‘If’ is of particular interest to Grice. The interest in the ‘if’ is double in Grice. In doxastic contexts, he needs it for his analysis of ‘intending’ against an ‘if’-based dispositional (i.e. subjective-conditional) analysis. He is of course, later interested in how Strawson misinterpreted the ‘indicative’ conditional! It is later when he starts to focus on the ‘buletic’ mode marker, that he wants to reach to Paton’s categorical (i.e. non-hypothetical) imperative. And in so doing, he has to face the criticism of those Oxonian philosophers who were sceptical about the very idea of a conditional buletic (‘conditional command – what kind of a command is that?’. Grice would refere to the protasis, or antecedent, as a relativiser – where we go again to the ‘absolutum’-‘relativum’ distinction. The conditional is also paramount in Grice’s criticism of Ryle, where the keyword would rather be ‘disposition.’ Then ther eis the conditional and disposition. Grice is a philosophical psychologist. Does that make sense? So are Austin (Other Minds), Hampshire (Dispositions), Pears (Problems in philosophical psychology) and Urmson (Parentheticals). They are ALL against Ryle’s silly analysis in terms of single-track disposition" vs. "many-track disposition," and "semi-disposition." If I hum and walk, I can either hum or walk. But if I heed mindfully, while an IN-direct sensing may guide me to YOUR soul, a DIRECT sensing guides me to MY soul. When Ogden consider attacks to meaning, theres what he calls the psychological, which he ascribes to Locke Grices attitude towards Ryle is difficult to assess. His most favourable assessment comes from Retrospective epilogue, but then he is referring to Ryle’s fairy godmother. Initially, he mentions Ryle as a philosopher engaged in, and possibly dedicated to the practice of the prevailing Oxonian methodology, i.e. ordinary-language philosophy. Initially, then, Grice enlists Ryle in the regiment of ordinary-language philosophers. After introducing Athenian dialectic and Oxonian dialectic, Grice traces some parallelisms, which should not surprise. It is tempting to suppose that Oxonian dialectic reproduces some ideas of Athenian dialectic.  It would actually be surprising if there were no parallels. Ryle was, after all, a skilled and enthusiastic student of Grecian philosophy. Interestingly, Grice then has Ryles fairy godmother as proposing the idea that, far from being a basis for rejecting the analytic-synthetic distinction, opposition that there are initially two distinct bundles of statements, bearing the labels analytic and synthetic, lying around in the world of thought waiting to be noticed, provides us with the key to making the analytic-synthetic distinction acceptable. The essay has a verificationist ring to it. Recall Ayer and the verificationists trying to hold water with concepts like fragile and the problem of counterfactual conditionals vis-a-vis observational and theoretical concepts. Grices essay has two parts: one on disposition as such, and the second, the application to a type of psychological disposition, which would be phenomenalist in a way, or verificationist, in that it derives from introspection of, shall we say, empirical phenomena. Grice is going to analyse, I want a sandwich. One person wrote in his manuscript, there is something with the way Grice goes to work. Still. Grice says that I want a sandwich (or I will that I eat a sandwich) is problematic, for analysis, in that it seems to refer to experience that is essentially private and unverifiable. An analysis of intending that p in terms of being disposed that p is satisfied solves this. Smith wants a sandwich, or he wills that he eats a sandwich, much as Toby needs nuts, if Smith opens the fridge and gets one. Smith is disposed to act such that p is satisfied. This Grice opposes to the ‘special-episode’ analysis of intending that p. An utterance like I want a sandwich iff by uttering the utterance, the utterer is describing this or that private experience, this or that private sensation. This or that sensation may take the form of a highly specific souly sate, like what Grice calls a sandwich-wanting-feeling. But then, if he is not happy with the privacy special-episode analysis, Grice is also dismissive of Ryles behaviourism in The concept of mind, fresh from the press, which would describe the utterance in terms purely of this or that observable response, or behavioural output, provided this or that sensory input. Grice became friendlier with functionalism after Lewis taught him how.  The problem or crunch is with the first person. Surely, Grice claims, one does not need to wait to observe oneself heading for the fridge before one is in a position to know that he is hungry.  Grice poses a problem for the protocol-reporter. You see or observe someone else, Smith, that Smith wants a sandwich, or wills that he eats a sandwich. You ask for evidence. But when it is the agent himself who wants the sandwich, or wills that he eats a sandwich, Grice melodramatically puts it, I am not in the audience, not even in the front row of the stalls; I am on the stage. Genial, as you will agree. Grice then goes on to offer an analysis of intend, his basic and target attitude, which he has just used to analyse and rephrase Peirces mean and which does relies on this or that piece of dispositional evidence, without divorcing itself completely from the privileged status or access of first-person introspective knowledge. In “Uncertainty,” Grice weakens his reductive analysis of intending that, from neo-Stoutian, based on certainty, or assurance, to neo-Prichardian, based on predicting. All very Oxonian: Stout was the sometime Wilde reader in mental philosophy (a post usually held by a psychologist, rather than a philosopher ‒ Stouts favourite philosopher is psychologist James! ‒ and Prichard was Cliftonian and the proper White chair of moral philosophy. And while in “Uncertainty” he allows that willing that may receive a physicalist treatment, qua state, hell later turn a functionalist, discussed under ‘soul, below, in his “Method in philosophical psychology (from the banal to the bizarre” (henceforth, “Method”), in the Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, repr. in “Conception.” Grice can easily relate to Hamsphires "Thought and Action," a most influential essay in the Oxonian scene. Rather than Ryle! And Grice actually addresses further topics on intention drawing on Hampshire, Hart, and his joint collaboration with Pears. Refs.: The main reference is Grice’s early essay on disposition and intention, The H. P. Grice. Refs.: The main published source is Essay 4 in WOW, but there are essays on ‘ifs and cans,’ so ‘if’ is a good keyword, on ‘entailment,’ and for the connection with ‘intending,’ ‘disposition and intention,’ BANC.

conjunctum: One has to be careful because the scholastic vocabulary also misleadingly has ‘copulatum’ for this. The ‘copulatum’ should be restricted to other usages, which Grice elaborates on ‘izzing’ and hazing. traditional parlance, one ‘pars orationis.’  Aulus Gellius writes; “What the Greeks call “sympleplegmenon” we call conjunctum or copulatum, copulative sentence. For example. The Stoic copulative sentence — sumpleplegmenon axioma — is translated by “conjunctum” or “copulatum,” for example: „P. Scipio, son of Paulus, was a consul twice and was given the honour of triumph and also performed the function of censor and was the colleague of L. Mummius during his censorship”. Here, Aulus Gellius made a noteworthy remark, referring to the value of truth of the composing propositions ■ (a Stoic problem). In keeping with the Stoics, he wrote: “If one element of the copulative sentence is false, even if all the other elements are true, the copulative sentence is false” (“in omni aiitem conjuncto si unum est mendacium etiamsi, caetera vera sunt, totum esse mendacium dicitur”). In the identification of ‘and’ with ‘Λ’ there is already a considerable distortion of the facts. ‘And’ can perform many jobs which ‘Λ’ cannot perform. It can, for instance, be used to couple nouns (“Tom and William arrived”), or adjectives (“He was hungry and thirsty”), or adverbs (“He walked slowly and painfully”); while ' . ' can be used only to couple expressions which could appear as separate sentences. One might be tempted to say that sentences in which “and” coupled words or phrases, were short for sentences in which “and” couples clauses; e.g., that “He was hungry and thirsty” was short for “He was hungry and he was thirsty.” But this is simply false. We do not say, of anyone who uses sentences like “Tom and William arrived,” that he is speaking elliptically, or using abbreviations. On the contrary, it is one of the functions of “and,” to which there is no counterpart In the case of “.,” to form plural subjects or compound predicates. Of course it is true of many statements of the forms “x and y” are/* or ' x is /and g \ that they are logically equivalent to corresponding statements of the" form * x Is /and yisf'oT^x is /and x is g \ But, first, this is a fact about the use, in certain contexts, of  “and,” to which there corresponds no rule for the use of * . '. And, second, there are countless contexts for which such an equivalence does not hold; e.g. “Tom and Mary made friends” is not equivalent to “Tom made friends and Mary made friends.” They mean, usually, quite different things. But notice that one could say “Tom and Mary made friends; but not with one another.” The implication of mutuality in the first phrase is not so strong but that it can be rejected without self-contradiction; but it is strong enough to make the rejection a slight shock, a literary effect. Nor does such an equivalence hold if we replace “made friends” by “met yesterday,” “were conversing,” “got married,” or “were playing chess.” Even “Tom and William arrived” does not mean the same as “Tom arrived and William arrived;” for the first suggests “together” and the second an order of arrival. It might be conceded that “and” has functions which “ .” has not (e.g., may carry in certain contexts an implication of mutuality which ‘.’  does not), and yet claimed that the rules which hold for “and,” where it is used to couple clauses, are the same as the rules which hold for “.” Even this is not true. By law (11), " p , q ' is logically equivalent to * q . p ' ; but “They got married and had a child” or “He set to work and found a job” are by no means logically equivalent to “They had a child and got married” or “He found a job and set to work.” One might try to avoid these difficulties by regarding ‘.’ as having the function, not of ' and ', but of what it looks like, namely a full stop. We should then have to desist from talking of statements of the forms ' p .q\ * p . J . r * &CM and talk of sets-of-statements of these forms instead. But this would not avoid all, though it would avoid some, of the difficulties. Even in a passage of prose consisting of several indicative sentences, the order of the sentences may be in general vital to the sense, and in particular, relevant (in a way ruled out by law (II)) to the truth-conditions of a set-of-statements made by such a passage. The fact is that, in general, in ordinary speech and writing, clauses and sentences do not contribute to the truthconditions of things said by the use of sentences and paragraphs in which they occur, in any such simple way as that pictured by the truth-tables for the binary connectives (' D ' * . ', 4 v ', 35 ') of the system, but in far more subtle, various, and complex ways. But it is precisely the simplicity of the way in which, by the definition of a truth-function, clauses joined by these connectives contribute to the truth-conditions of sentences resulting from the junctions, which makes possible the stylized, mechanical neatness of the logical system. It will not do to reproach the logician for his divorce from linguistic realities, any more than it will do to reproach the abstract painter for not being a representational artist; but one may justly reproach him if he claims to be a representational artist. An abstract painting may be, recognizably, a painting of something. And the identification of “.” with ‘and,’ or with a full stop, is not a simple mistake. There is a great deal of point in comparing them. The interpretation of, and rules for, “.”define a minimal linguistic operation, which we might call ‘simple conjunction’ and roughly describe as the joining together of two (or more) statements in the process of asserting them both (or all). And this is a part of what we often do with ' and ', and with the full stop. But we do not string together at random any assertions we consider true; we bring them together, in spoken or written sentences or paragraphs, only when there is some further reason for the rapprochement, e.g., when they record successive episodes in a single narrative. And that for the sake of which we conjoin may confer upon the sentences embodying the conjunction logical features at variance with the rules for “.” Thus we have seen that a statement of the form “p and q” may carry an implication of temporal order incompatible with that carried by the corresponding statement of the form “q and p.” This is not to deny that statements corresponding to these, but of the forms ‘pΛq’ and ‘qΛp’would be, if made, logically equivalent; for such statements would carry no implications, and therefore no incompatible implications, of temporal order. Nor is it to deny the point, and merit, of the comparison; the statement of the form ‘pΛq’ means at least a part of what is meant by the corresponding statement of the form ‘p and q.’ We might say:  the form ‘p q’ is an abstraction from the different uses of the form ‘p and q.’  Simple conjunction is a minimal element in colloquial conjunction. We may speak of ‘. ‘ as the conjunctive sign; and read it, for simplicity's sake, as “and” or “both … and … “I have already remarked that the divergence between the meanings given to the truth-functional constants and the meanings of the ordinary conjunctions with which they are commonly identified is at a minimum in the cases of ' ~ ' and ‘.’ We have seen, as well, that the remaining constants of the system can be defined in terms of these two. Other interdefinitions are equally possible. But since ^’ and ‘.’  are more nearly identifiable with ‘not’ and ‘and’ than any other constant with any other English word, I prefer to emphasize the definability of the remaining constants in terms of ‘ .’ and ‘~.’ It is useful to remember that every rule or law of the system can be expressed in terms of negation and simple conjunction. The system might, indeed, be called the System of Negation and Conjunction. Grice lists ‘and’ as the first binary functor in his response to Strawson. Grice’s conversationalist hypothesis applies to this central ‘connective.’ Interestingly, in his essay on Aristotle, and discussing, “French poet,” Grice distinguishes between conjunction and adjunction. “French” is adjuncted to ‘poet,’ unlike ‘fat’ in ‘fat philosopher.’  And Grice:substructural logics, metainference, implicature. Grice explores some of the issues regarding pragmatic enrichment and substructural logics with a special focus on the first dyadic truth-functor, ‘and.’ In particular, attention is given to a sub-structural “rule” pertaining to the commutativeness of conjunction, applying a framework that sees Grice as clarifying the extra material that must be taken into account, and which will referred to as the ‘implicatum.’ Grice is thus presented as defending a “classical-logical” rule that assigns commutativeness to conjunction while accounting for Strawson-type alleged counterexamples to the effect that some utterances of the schema “p and q” hardly allow for a ‘commutative’ “inference” (“Therefore, q and p”). How to proceed conservatively while allowing room for pluralism? Embracing the “classical-logical” syntactic introduction-cum-elimination and semantic interpretation of “and,” the approach by Cook Wilson in “Statement and inference” to the inferential métier of “and” is assessed. If Grice grants that there is some degree of artificiality in speaking of the meaning or sense of “and,” the polemic brings us to the realm of ‘pragmatic inference,’ now contrasted to a ‘logical inference.’ The endorsement by Grice of an ‘impoverished’ reading of conjunction appears conservative vis-à-vis not just Strawson’s ‘informalist’ picture but indeed the formalist frameworks of relevant, linear, and ordered logic. An external practical decision à la Carnap is in order, that allows for an enriched, stronger, reading, if not in terms of a conventional implicatum, as Strawson suggests. A ‘classical-logic’ reading in terms of a conversational implicatum agrees with Grice’s ‘Bootstrap,’ a methodological principle constraining the meta-language/object-language divide. Keywords: conjunction, pragmatic enrichment, H. Paul Grice, Bootstrap. “[I]n recent years, my disposition to resort to formalism has markedly diminished. This retreat may well have been accelerated when, of all people, Hilary Putnam remarked to me that I was too formal!”H.P. Grice, ‘Prejudices and predilections; which become, the life and opinions of Paul Grice,’ in Grandy & Warner, 1986:61 Keywords: metainference, substructural logics, classical logic, conjunction, H. Paul Grice, pragmatic inference; Rudolf Carnap, bootstrap, modernism, formalism, neotraditionalism, informalism, pragmatics, inference, implicature, extensional conjunction, intensional conjunction, multiplicative conjunction, additive conjunction. Grice’s approach consistent with Rudolf Carnap’s logical pluralism that allows room for the account put forward by H. Paul Grice in connection with a specific meta-inference (or second-order “… yields …”) as it may help us take an ‘external’ practical decision as to how to recapture a structural ‘rule’ of classical logic. The attempt involves a reconsideration, with a special focus on the sub-structural classical logic rules for conjunction of Grice’s ultimately metaphilosophical motivation in the opening paragraphs to “Logic and Conversation.” Grice explores stick  the first dyadic truth-functor Grice lists. In fact, it’s the first alleged divergence, between “p and q” and “p. . q” that Grice had quotes in “Prolegomena” to motivate his audience, and the example he brings up vis-à-vis an ‘alleged’ “linguistic offence” (a paradox?) that an utterer may incur by uttering “He got into bed and took his clothes off, but I don’t mean to suggest he did it in that order” (Grice 1981:186). Implicata are cancellable. In the present scheme, which justifies substructural logics, this amounts to any ‘intensional’ reading of a connective (e. g. ‘and’) being susceptible of being turned or ‘trans-formed’ into the correlative extensional one in light of the cancelling clause, which brings new information to the addressee A. This is hardly problematic if we consider that sub-structural logics do not aim to capture the ‘semantics’ of a logical constant, and that the sub-structural logical ‘enrichment’ is relevant, rather, for the constant’s ‘inferential role.’Neither is it problematic that the fact that the ‘inferential role’ of a logical constant (such as ‘and’) may change (allowing this ‘trans-formation’ from classical-logical extensional to sub-structural logical intension, given new information which will be used by the addressee A to ‘work out’ the utterer U’s meaning. The obvious, but worthemphasizing, entailment in Grice’s assertion about the “mistake” shared by Formalism and Informalism is that FORMALISM (as per the standard presentations of ‘classical logic’) does commit a mistake! Re-capturing the FORMALISM of classical logic is hardly as direct in the Griceian programme as one would assume. Grice’s ultimate meta-philosophical motivation, though, seems to be more in agreement with FORMALISM. Formalism can repair the mistake, Grice thinks, not by allowing a change in the assigning of an ‘interpretation’ rule of an empoverished “and” (““p and q” is 1 iff both p and q are 1, 0 otherwise.” (Cfr. Pap: “Obviously, I cannot prove that “(p and q) ≡ (q and p)” is tautologous (and that therefore “He got into bed and took off his clothes’ iff ‘he took of his clothes and got into bed,’) unless I first construct an adequate truth-table defining the use of “and.” But surely one of the points of constructing such a table is to ‘reproduce’ or capture’ the meaning of ‘and’ in a natural language! The proposal seems circular!) and a deductive ‘syntactics’ rule, involving the Gentzen-type elimination of ‘and’ (“ “p and q” yields “p”; and its reciprocal, “ “p and q” yields “q”.” To avoid commiting the mistake, formalism must recognise the conversational implicatum ceteris paribus derived from some constraint of rational co-operation (in particular, the desideratum or conversational maxim, “be orderly!”) and allow for some syntactical scope device to make the implicatum obvious, an ‘explicatum,’ almost (without the need to reinforce “and” into “and then”). In Grice’s examples, it may not even be a VIOLATION, but a FLOUT, of a conversational maxim or desideratum, within the observance of an overarching co-operation principle (A violation goes unnoticed; a flout is a rhetorical device. Cfr. Quintilian’s observation that Homer would often use “p & q” with the implicatum “but not in that order” left to the bard’s audience to work out). Grice’s attempt is to recapture “classical-logic” “and,” however pragmatically ‘enriched,’ shares some features with other sub-structural logics, since we have allowed for a syntactical tweak of the ‘inference’ rules; which we do via the pragmatist (rather than pragmatic) ‘implicatural’ approach to logic, highlighting one pragmatic aspect of a logic without CUT.  Grice grants that “p and q” should read “p . q” “when [“p . q” is] interpreted in the classical two-valued way.” His wording is thus consistent with OTHER ways (notably relevant logic, linear and ordered logic). Grice seems to have as one of his ‘unspeakable truths’ things like “He got into bed and took his clothes off,” “said of a man who proceeds otherwise.” After mentioning “and” “interpreted in the classical two-valued way,” Grice dedicates a full  paragraph to explore the classical logic’s manifesto. The idea is to provide a SYSTEM that will give us an algorithm to decide which formulae are theorems. The ‘logical consequence’ (or “… yields …”) relation is given a precise definition.Grice notes that “some logicians [whom he does not mention] may at some time have wanted to claim that there are in fact no such divergences [between “p and q” and “p . q”]; but such claims, if made at all, have been somewhat rashly made, and those suspected of making them have been subjected to some pretty rough handling.” “Those who concede that such divergences [do] exist” are the formalists. “An outline of a not uncharacteristic FORMALIST position may be given as follows,” Grice notes. We proceed to number the thesis since it sheds light on what makes a sub-structural logic sub-structural“Insofar as logicians are concerned with the formulation of very general patterns of VALID INFERENCE (“… yields…”) the formal device (“p . q”) possesses a decisive advantage over their natural counterpart (“p and q.”) For it will be possible to construct in terms of the formal device (“p . q”) a system of very general formulas, a considerable number of which can be regarded as, or are closely related to, a pattern of inferences the expression of which involves the device.”“Such a system may consist of a certain set of simple formulas that MUST BE ACCEPTABLE if the device has the MEANING (or sense) that has been ASSIGNED to it, and an indefinite number of further formulas, many of them less obviously acceptable (“q . p”), each of which can be shown to be acceptable if the members of the original set are acceptable.”“We have, thus, a way of handling dubiously acceptable patterns of inference (“q. p,” therefore, “p. q”) and if, as is sometimes possible, we can apply A DECISION PROCEDURE, we have an even better way.”“Furthermore, from a PHILOSOPHICAL point of view, the possession by the natural counterpart (“p and q”) of that element in their meaning (or sense), which they do NOT share with the corresponding formal device, is to be regarded as an IMPERFECTION; the element in question is an undesirable excrescence. For the presence of this element has the result that the CONCEPT within which it appears cannot be precisely/clearly defined, and that at least SOME statements involving it cannot, in some circumstances, be assigned a definite TRUTH VALUE; and the indefiniteness of this concept is not only objectionable in itself but leaves open the way to METAPHYSICS: we cannot be certain that the natural-language expression (“p and q”) is METAPHYSICALLY ‘LOADED.’”“For these reasons, the expression, as used in natural speech (“p and q”), CANNOT be regarded as finally acceptable, and may tum out to be, finally, not fully intelligible.” “The proper course is to conceive and begin to construct an IDEAL language, incorporating the formal device (“p . q”), the sentences of which will be clear, determinate in TRUTH-VALUE, and certifiably FREE FROM METAPHYSICAL IMPLICATIONS.”“The foundations of SCIENCE will now be PHILOSOPHICALLY SECURE, since the statements of the scientist will be EXPRESSIBLE (though not necessarily actually expressed) within this ideal language.”What kind of enrichment are we talking about? It may be understood as a third conjunct p_tn-l & q_tn & (t_n > t_n-l) FIRST CONJUNCT + SECOND CONJUNCT + “TEMPORAL SUCCESSION” p AND THEN q To buttress the buttressing of ‘and,’ Grice uses ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ for other operators like ‘disjunction – and his rationale for the Modified Occam’s razor would be: “A STRONGER SENSE for a truth-functional dyadic operator SHOULD NOT BE POSTULATED when A WEAK (or minimal) SENSE does, provided we add the CANCELLABLE IMPLICATUM.” Grice SIMPLIFIES semantics, but there’s no free lunch, since he now has to explain how the IMPLICATUM arises. Let’s revise the way “and,” the first ‘dyadic’ device in “Logic and Conversation,” is invoked by Grice in “Prolegomena.” “He got into bed and took his clothes off,” “said of a someone who took his clothes off and got into bed.”  Cfr. theorems ∧I = ` ∀ φ ψ• [φ; ψ] |= φ ∧ ψ  ∧E = ` ∀ φ ψ• ([φ ∧ ψ] |= φ) ∧ ([φ ∧ ψ] |= ψ)We have: He got into bed and took his clothes off (Grice, 1989:9). He took his clothes off and got into bed (Grice, 1989:9). He got into bed and took his clothes off but I don’t want to suggest that he did those things in that order (Grice, 1981:186). He first took his clothes off and then got into bed (Grice 1989:9). In invoking Strawson’s Introduction to Logical Theory, is Grice being fair? Strawson had noted, provocatively: “[The formula] “p . q’ is logically equivalent to ‘q . p’; but [the English] ‘They got married and had a child’ or ‘He set to work and found a job’ are by no means logically equivalent to ‘They had a child and got married’ or ‘He found a job and set to work.’”How easier things would have gone should Strawson have used the adjective ‘pragmatic’ that he mentions later in his treatise in connection with Grice. Strawson is sticking with the truth-functionality and thinking of ‘equivalence’ in terms of ‘iff’ – but his remark may be rephrased as involving a notion of ‘inference.’ In terms of LOGICAL INFERENCE, the premise “He got into bed and took his clothes off” YIELDS “He took off his clothes and got into bed,” even if that does NOT ‘yield’ in terms of ceteris paribus PRAGMATIC inference. It would  have pleased Grice to read the above as: “[The formula] “p . q’ is equivalent_L to ‘q . p’; but [the English] ‘They got married and had a child’ or ‘He set to work and found a job’ are by no means equivalent_P to ‘They had a child and got married’ or ‘He found a job and set to work.’” By appealing to a desideratum of rational co-operative discourse, “be orderly,” Grice thinks he can restore “and” to its truth-functional sense, while granting that the re-inforced “then” (or an alleged extra sense of “temporal succession,” as he has it in “Prolegomena”) is merely and naturally (if cancellable on occasion) conversationally implicated (even if under a generalised way) under the assumption that the addressee A will recognise that the utterer U is observing the desideratum, and is being orderly. But witness variants to the cancellation (3) above. There is an indifferent, indeterminate form: He got into bed and took off his clothes, though I don’t mean to imply that he did that in that order.versus the less indeterminate He got into bed and took his clothes off, but not in that order. +> i.e. in the reverse one.Postulating a pragmatic desideratum allows Grice to keep any standard sub-structural classical rule for “and” and “&” (as s he does when he goes more formalist in “Vacuous Names,” his tribute to Quine).How are to interpret the Grice/Strawson ‘rivalry’ in meta-inference? Using Frege’s assertion “⊦_LK” as our operator to read “… yields…” we have:p & q ⊦_LK q & p and q & p ⊦_LK p & q. In “Prolegomena,” then, Grice introduces:“B. Examples involve an area of special interest to me [since he was appointed logic tutor at St. John’s], namely that of expressions which are candidates for being natural analogues to logical constants and which may, or may not, ‘diverge’ in meaning [not use] from the related constants (considered as elements in a classical logic, standardly interpreted). It has, for example, been suggested that because it would be incorrect or inappropriate [or misleading, even false?] to say “He got into bed and took off his clothes” of [someone] who first took off his clothes and then got into bed, it is part of the meaning [or sense] or part of one meaning [sub-sense] of “and” to convey temporal succession” (Grice 1989:8). The explanation in terms of a reference to “be orderly” is mentioned in “Presupposition and conversational implicature” (Grice 1981:186). Grice notes: “It has been suggested by [an informalist like] Strawson, in [An] Introduction to Logical Theory [by changing the title of Strawson’s essay, Grice seems to be implicating that Strawson need not sound pretentious] that there is a divergence between the ordinary use or meaning of ‘and’ and the conjunction sign [“.”] of propositional or predicate calculus because “He took off his clothes and got into to bed” does not seem to have the same meaning as “He got into bed and took off his clothes.”” Grice goes on: “[Strawson’s] suggestion here is, of course, that, in order properly to represent the ordinary use of [the word] “and,” one would have to allow a special sense (or sub-sense) for [the word] “and” which contained some reference to the idea that what was mentioned before [the word] “and” was temporally prior to what was mentioned after it, and that, on that supposition, one could deal with this case.”Grice goes on: “[Contra Strawson,] I want to suggest in reply that it is not necessary [call him an Occamist, minimalist] if one operates on some general principle [such as M. O. R., or Modified Occam’s Razor] of keeping down, as far as possible, the number of special sense [sic] of words that one has to invoke, to give countenance to the alleged divergence of meaning.” The constraint is not an arbitrary assignation of sense, but a rational one derived from the nature of conversation:“It is just that there is a general supposition [which would be sub-sidiary to the general maxim of Manner or ‘Modus’ (‘be perspicuous! [sic]’) that one presents one's material in an orderly manner and, if what one is engaged upon is a narration (if one is talking about events), then the most orderly manner for a narration of events is an order that corresponds to the order in which they took place.”Grice concludes: “So, the meaning of the expression ‘He took off his clothes and he got into bed” and the corresponding expression with a [classical] logician's constant "&" [when given a standard two-valued interpretation] (i.e. “He took his clothes off & he got into bed") would be exactly the same.”Grice’s indifference with what type of formalism to adopt is obvious: “And, indeed, if anybody actually used in ordinary speech the "&" as a piece of vocabulary instead of as a formal(ist) device, and used it to connect together sentences of this type, they would collect just the same [generalised conversational] implicata as the ordinary English sentences have without any extra explanation of the meaning of the word ‘and’.” It is then that Grice goes on to test the ‘cancellability,’ producing the typical Gricean idiom,  above:He took his clothes off and got into bed but I don't mean to suggest that he did those things in that order.  Grice goes on: “I should say that I did suggest, in [my essay] on implicature, two sorts of  tests by which  one might hope to identify a conversational implicature. [...] I did not mean to suggest that these tests were final, only that they were useful. One test was the possibility of cancellation; that is to say, could one without [classical] logical absurdity [when we have a standard two-valued interpretation], attach a cancellation clause. For instance, could I say (9)?” Grice: “If that is not a linguistic offense [and ‘false’], or does not seem to be, then, so far as it goes, it is an indication that what one has here is a conversational implicature, and that the original [alleged meaning, sense, or] suggestion of temporal succession [is] not part of the conventional meaning of the sentence.” Grice (1981, p. 186). Formalising the temporal succession is never enough but it may help, and (9) becomes (10):p & q and p_tn-l & q_tn where “tn-l” is a temporal index for a time prior to “tn”. It is interesting to note that Chomsky, of all people, in 1966, a year before Grice’s William James lectures, in Aspects of the theory of syntax refers to “A [sic] P. Grice” as propounding that temporal succession be considered implicature (Since this pre-dates the William James lectures by a year, it was via the seminars at Oxford that reached Chomsky at MIT via some of Grice’s tutees).Let us revise Urmson’s wording in his treatment of the ‘clothes’ example, to check if Grice is being influenced by Urmson’s presentation of the problem to attack Strawson. Urmson notes: “In formal[ist] logic, the connective[…] ‘and’ [is] always given a minimum [empoverished] meaning, as [I] have done above, such that any complex [molecular sentence] formed by the use of [it] alone is [always] a truth-function of its constituents.”Urmson goes on to sound almost like Strawson, whose Introduction to Logical Theory he credits. Urmson notes: “In ordinary discourse the connective[… ‘and]] often [has] a *richer* meaning.”Urmson must be credited, with this use of ‘richer’ as the father of pragmatic enRICHment!Urmson goes on: “Thus ‘He took his clothes off and got into bed’ implies temporal succession and has a different meaning from [the impoverished, unreinforced] ‘He got into bed and took off his clothes.’” Urmson does not play with Grice’s reinforcement: “He first got into bed and then took his clothes off.’ Urmson goes on, however, in his concluding remark, to side with Grice versus Strawson, as he should! Urmson notes: “[Formal(ist) l]ogicians would justify their use of the minimum [impoverished, unreinforced, weak] meaning by pointing out that it is the common element in all our uses [or every use] of ‘and.’” (Urmson, 1956:9-10). The commutativeness of ‘and’ in the examples he gives is rejected by Strawson.  How does Strawson reflect this in his sub-structural rule for ‘and’? As Humberstone puts it, “It is possible to define a version of the calculus, which defines most of the syntax of the logical operators by means of axioms, and which uses only one inference rule.”Axioms: Let φ, χ and ψ stand for well-formed formulae. The wff's themselves would not contain any Greek letters, but only capital Roman letters, connective operators, and parentheses. The axioms include:AND_{FIRST-CONJUNCT}: φ ∧ χ → φ and AND_{SECOND-CONJUNCT}: φ ∧ χ → χ. Our (13) and (14) correspond to Gentzen’s “conjunction elimination” (or (& -), as Grice has it in “Vacuous Names.”).  The relation between (13) and (14) reflects the commutativity of the conjunction operator. Cfr. Cohen 1971: “Another conversational maxim of Grice's, “be orderly”, is intended to govern such matters as the formalist can show that it was not appropriate to postulate a special non-commutative temporal conjunction.”“The locus classicus for complaints of this nature being Strawson (1952).” Note that the commutative “and” is derived from Grice’s elimination of conjunction, “p & q ⊦ p” and “p & q ⊦ q -- as used by Grice in his system Q.Also note that the truth-evaluation would be for Grice ‘semantic,’ rather than ‘syntactic’ as the commutative (understood as part of elimination). Grice has it as: If phi and psi are formulae, “φ and ” is 1 iff both φ and ψ are true, 0 otherwise. Grice grants that however “baffling” (or misleading) would be to utter or assert (7) if no one has doubts about the temporal order of the reported the events, due to the expectation that the utterer is observing the conversational maxim “be orderly” subsumed under the conversational category of ‘Modus’ (‘be perspicuous! [sic]” – cfr. his earlier desideratum of conversational clarity). Relevant logic (which was emerging by the time Grice was delivering his William James lectures) introduces two different formal signs for ‘conjunction’: the truth-functional conjunction relevant logicians call ‘extensional’ conjunction, and they represent by (13). Non-truth-functional conjunction is represented by ‘X’ and termed fusion or ‘intensional’ conjunction: p  ^ q  versus p X q. The truth-table for Strawson’s enriched uses of “and” is not the standard one, since we require the additional condition that “p predates q,” or that one conjunct predates the other. Playing with structural and substructural logical rules is something Carnap would love perhaps more than Grice, and why not, Strawson? They liked to play with ‘deviant’ logics. For Carnap, the choice of a logic is a pragmatic ‘external’ decision – vide his principle of tolerance and the rather extensive bibliography on Carnap as a logic pluralist. For Grice, classical logic is a choice guided by his respect for ordinary language, WHILE attempting to PROVOKE the Oxonian establishment by rallying to the defense of an under-dogma and play the ‘skilful heretic’ (turning a heterodoxy into dogma). Strawson is usually more difficult to classify! In his contribution to Grandy & Warner (1986), he grants that Grice’s theory may be ‘more beautiful,’ and more importantly, seems to suggest that his view be seen as endorsing Grice’s account of a CONVENTIONAL implicature (For Strawson, ‘if’ (used for unasserted antecedent and consequence) conventionally implicates the same inferrability condition that ‘so’ does for asserted equivalents. The aim is to allow for a logically pluralist thesis, almost alla Carnap about the ‘inferential role’ of a logical constant such as ‘and’, which embraces ‘classical,’ (or ‘formalist,’ or ‘modernist’), relevant, linear and ordered logic. PLURALISM (versus MONISM) has it that, for any logical constant c (such as “and”), “c” has more than one *correct* inferential “role.” The pluralist thesis depends on a specific interpretation of the vocabulary of sub-structural logics. According to this specific interpretation, a classical logic captures the literal, or EXPLICIT, explicatum, or truth-functional or truth-conditonal meaning, or what Grice would have as ‘dictiveness’ of a logical constant. A sub-structural logic (relevant logic, linear and ordered logic), on the other hand, encodes a pragmatically,” i.e. not SEMANTICALLY, “-enriched sense” of a logical constant such as “and.” Is this against the spirit of Grice’s overall thesis as formulated in his “M. O. R.,” Modified Occam’s Razor, “Senses [of ‘and’] are not to be multiplied beyond necessity”? But it’s precisely Grice’s Occamism (as Neale calls it) that is being put into question.  At Oxford, at the time, EVERYBODY (except Grice!) was an informalist. He is coming to the defense of Russell, Oxford’s underdog! (underdogma!). Plus, it’s important to understand the INFORMALISM that Grice is attacking – Oxford’s ORTHO-doxy – seriously. Grice is being the ‘skilful HERETIC,’ in the words of his successor as Tutorial Fellow at Oxford, G. P. Baker. We may proceed by four stages.  First, introduce the philosophical motivation for the pluralist thesis. It sounds good to be a PLURALIST. Strawson was not. He was an informalist. Grice was not, he was a post-modernist. But surely we not assuming that one would want to eat the cake and have it! Second, introduce the calculus for the different (or ‘deviant,’ as Haack prefers) logics endorsed in the pluralist thesis – classical itself, relevant, linear and ordered logic. Third, shows how the different “behaviours” of an item of logical vocabulary (such as “and”) of each of these logics (and they all have variants for ‘conjunction.’ In the case of ‘relevant’ logic, beyond Grice’s “&,” or classical conjunction, there is “extensional conjunction,” FORMALISED as “p X q”, or fusion, and “INTENSIONAL conjunction,” formalized by “p O q”. These can be, not semantically (truth-functionally, or truth-conditional, or at the level of the EXPLICATUM), but pragmatically interpreted (at the level of the IMPLICATUM). Fourth, shows how the *different* (or ‘deviant,’ or pluralist), or alternative inferential “roles” (that justifies PLURALISM) that *two* sub-structural logics (say, Grice’s classical “&” the Strawson’s informalist “and”) attribute to a logical constant “c” can co-exist – hence pluralism. A particular version of logical “pluralism” can be argued from the plurality of at least *two* alterative equally legitimate formalisations of the logical vocabulary, such as the first dyadic truth-functor, or connective, “and,” which is symbolized by Grice as “&,” NOT formalized by Strawson (he sticks with “and”) and FORMALISED by relevant logicians as ‘extensional’ truth-functional conjunction (fision, p X a) and intentional non-truth-functional conjunction (p O q).  In particular, it can be argued that the apparent “rivalry” between classical logic (what Grice has as Modernism, but he himself is a post-modernist) and relevant logic (but consider Grice on Strawson’s “Neo-Traditionalism,” first called INFORMALISM by Grice) can be resolved, given that both logics capture and formalise normative and legitimate alternative senses of ‘logical consequence.’  A revision of the second paragraph to “Logic and Conversation” should do here. We can distinguish between two operators for “… yields …”: ├ and ├: “A1, A2, … An├_{MODERNISM/FORMALISM-PAUL} B” and “A1, A2, … An├_{NEO-TRADITIONALISM/INFORMALISM-PETER} B. As Paoli has it: “[U]pholding weakening amounts to failing to take at face value the [slightly Griceian] expression ‘assertable on the basis of’.’”Paoli goes on:“If I am in a position to assert [the conclusion q, “He took his clothes off and got into bed”] on the basis of the information provided by [the premise p, “He got into bed and took his clothes off”], I need NOT be in a position to assert the conclusion P [“He took his clothes off and got into bed”] on the basis of both p (“He got into bed and took off his clothes” and an extra premise C - where C is just an idle assumption (“The events took place in the order reported”) , irrelevant to my conclusion.”Can we regard Strawson as holding that UNFORMALISED “and” is an INTENSIONAL CONJUNCTION? Another option is to see Strawson as holding that the UNFORMALISED “and” can be BOTH truth-functional and NON-truth-functional (for which case, the use of a different expression, “and THEN,” is preferred). The Gricean theory of implicature is capable of explaining this mismatch (bewtween “and” and “&”).Grice argues that the [truth-conditional, truth-functional] semantics [DICTUM or EXPLICATUM, not IMPLICATUM – cfr. his retrospective epilogue for his view on DICTIVENESS] of “and” corresponds [or is identical, hence the name of ‘identity’ thesis versus ‘divergence’ thesis] to the classical “∧,” & of Russell/Whitehead, and Quine, and Suppes, and that the [truth-functional semantics of “if [p,] [q]” corresponds to the classical p ⊃ q.” There is scope for any theory capable of resolving or [as Grice would have it] denying the apparent disagreement [or ‘rivalry’] among two or more logics.” What Grice does is DENY THE APPARENT DISAGREEMENT.  It’s best to keep ‘rivalry’ for the fight of two ‘warring camps’ like FORMALISM and INFORMALISM, and stick with ‘disagreement’ or ‘divergence’ with reference to specific constants. For Strawson, being a thorough-bred Oxonian, who perhaps never read the Iliad in Greek – he was Grice’s PPE student – the RIVALRY is not between TWO different formalisations, but between the ‘brusque’ formalisation of the FORMALISTS (that murder his English!) and NO FORMALISATION at all. Grice calls this ‘neo-traditionalist,’ perhaps implicating that the ‘neo-traditionalists’ WOULD accept some level of formalisation (Aristotle did!) ONLY ONE FORMALISATION, the Modernism. INFORMALISM or Neo-Traditionalism aims to do WITHOUT formalisation, if that means using anything, but, say, “and” and “and then”. Talk of SENSES helps. Strawson may say that “and” has a SENSE which differs from “&,” seeing that he would find “He drank the poison and died, though I do not mean to imply in that order” is a CONTRADICTION. That is why Strawson is an ‘ordinary-LANGUAGE philosopher,” and not a logician! (Or should we say, an ‘ordinary-language logician’? His “Introduction to Logical Theory” was the mandatory reading vademecum for GENERATIONS of Oxonians that had to undergo a logic course to get their M. A. Lit. Hum.Then there’s what we can call “the Gricean picture,” only it’s not too clear who painted it!We may agree that there is an apparent “mismatch,” as opposed to a perfect “match” that Grice would love! Grice thought with Russell that grammar is a pretty good guide to logical form. If the utterer says “and” and NOT “and then,” there is no need to postulate a further SENSE to ‘and.’Russell would criticize Strawson’s attempt to reject modernist “&” as a surrogate for “and” as Strawson’s attempt to regress to a stone-age metaphysics. Grice actually at this point, defended Strawson: “stone-age PHYSICS!”  And this relates to “… yields…” and Frege’s assertion “/-“ as ‘Conclusion follows from Premise’ where ‘Premise yields Conclusion’ seems more natural in that we preserve the order from premise to conclusion. We shouldn’t underestimate one crucial feature of an implicatum: its cancellability, on which Grice expands quite a bit in 1981: “He got into bed and took his clothes off, although I don’t intend to suggest, in any shape or form, that he proceed to do those things in the order I’ve just reported!”The lack of any [fixed, rigid, intolerant] structural rule implies that AN INSTANCE I1 of the a logical constant (such as “and”) that *violate* any of Grice’s conversational maxim (here “be orderly!”) associated with the relevant structural rule [here we may think of ADDITION AND SIMPLIFICATION as two axioms derived from the Gentzen-type elimination of “and”, or the ‘interpretation’ of ‘p & q’ as 1 iff both p and q are 1, but 0 otherwise] and for which the derived conversational implicature is false [“He went to bed and took his clothes off, but not in that order!”] should be distinguished from ANY INSTANCE I2 that does NOT violate the relevant maxim (“be orderly”) and for which the conversational IMPLICATUM (“tn > tn-l”) is true.” We may nitpick here.Grice would rather prefer, ‘when the IMPLICATUM applies.” An implicatum is by definition cancellable (This is clear when Grice expands in the excursus “A causal theory of perception.” “I would hardly be said to have IMPLIED that Smith is hopeless in philosophy should I utter, “He has beautiful handwriting; I don’t mean to imply he is hopeless in philosophy,” “even if that is precisely what my addressee ends up thinking!”When it comes to “and,” we are on clearer ground. The kinds of “and”-implicatures may be captured by a distinction of two ‘uses’ of conjunctions in a single substructural system S that does WITHOUT a ‘structural rule’ such as exchange, contraction or both. Read, relies, very UNLIKE Strawson, on wo FORMALISATIONS besides “and” (for surely English “and” does have a ‘form,’ too, pace Strawson) in Relevant Logic: “p ^ q” and “p X q.”  “p ^ q” and “p X q” have each a different inferential role. If the reason the UTTERER has to assert it – via the DICTUM or EXPLICATUM [we avoid ‘assert’ seeing that we want logical constants to trade on ‘imperative contexts,’ too – Grice, “touch the beast and it will bite you!” -- is the utterer’s belief that Smith took his clothes AND THEN got into bed, it would be illegitimate, unwarranted, stupid, otiose, incorrect, inappropriate, to infer that Smith did not do these two things in that order upon discovering that he in fact DID those things in the order reported.  The very discovery that Smith did the things in the order reported would “just spoil” or unwarrant the derivation that would justify our use of “… yields …” (¬A ¬(A u B) A ¬B”). As Read notes, we have ADJUNCTION ‘p and q’ follows from p and q – or p and q yields ‘p and q.’  And we have SIMPLIFICATION: p and q follow from ‘p and q,’ or ‘p and q’ yields p, and ‘p and q’ yields q.” Stephen Read: “From adjunction and simplification we can infer, by transitivity, that q follows from p and q, and so by the Deduction Equivalence, ‘if p, q’ follows from q.’” “However, […] this has the unacceptable consequence that ‘if’ is truth-functional.”  “How can this consequence be avoided?” “Many options are open.” “We can reject the transitivity of entailment, the deduction equivalence, adjunction, or simplification. Each has been tried; and each seems contrary to intuition.” “We are again in the paradoxical situation that each of these conceptions seems intuitively soundly based; yet their combination appears to lead to something unacceptable.” “Are we nonetheless forced to reject one of these plausible principles?” “Fortunately, there is a fifth option.” Read: “There is a familiar truth-functional conjunction, expressed by ‘p and q’, which entails each of p and q, and so for the falsity (Grice’s 0) of which the falsity of either conjunct suffices, and the truth of both for the truth of the whole.” “But there is also a NON-truth-functional conjunction, a SENSE of ‘p and q’ whose falsity supports the inference from p to ‘~q’.” “These two SENSES of ‘conjunction’ cannot be the same, for, if the ground for asserting ‘not-(p and q)’ (e.g. “It is not the case that he got into bed and took off his clothes”) is simply that ‘p’ is false, to learn that p is true, far from enabling one to proceed to ‘~q’, undercuts the warrant for asserting ‘~(p & q)’ in the first place.” “In this sense, ‘~(p & q)’ is weaker than both ‘~p’ and ‘~q’, and does not, even with the addition of p, entail ‘~q’, even though one possible ground for asserting ‘~(p & q))’, viz ‘~q’, clearly does.” Stephen Read: “The intensional sense of ‘and’ is often referred to as fusion; I will use the symbol ‘×’ for it. Others write ‘◦.’”We add some relevant observations by a palaeo-Griceian: Ryle. Ryle often felt himself to be an outsider. His remarks on “and” are however illuminating in the context of our discussion of meta-inference in substructural logic.Ryle writes: “I have spoken as if our ordinary ‘and’ […] [is] identical with the logical constant with which the formal logician operates.”“But this is not true.”“The logician’s ‘and’ […] [is] not our familiar civilian term[…].”“It is [a] conscript term, in uniform and under military discipline, with memories, indeed, of [its] previous more free and easy civilian life, though it is not leaving that life now.”“If you hear on good authority that she took arsenic and fell ill you will reject the rumour that she fell ill and took arsenic.”“This familiar use of ‘and’ carries with it the temporal notion expressed by ‘and subsequently’ and even the causal notion expressed by ‘and in consequence.’”“The logician’s conscript ‘and’ does only its appointed duty – a duty in which ‘she took arsenic and fell ill’ is an absolute paraphrase of ‘she fell ill and took arsenic.’ This might be call the minimal force of ‘and.’” (Ryle,, 1954:118). When we speaks of PRAGMATIC enrichment, we obviously don’t mean SEMANTIC enrichment. There is a distinction, obviously, between the ‘pragmatic enrichment’ dimension, as to whether the ‘enriched’ content is IMPLICATED or, to use a neologism, ‘EX-plicated.’ Or cf. as Kent Bach would prefer, “IMPLICITATED” (vide his “Implciture.”) Commutative law: p & q iff q & p. “Axiom AND-1” and “Axiom AND-2” correspond to "conjunction elimination". The relation between “AND-1” and “AND-2” reflects the commutativity of the conjunction operator. A VERY IMPORTANT POINT to consider is Grice’s distinction between ‘logical inference’ and ‘pragmatic inference.’ He does so in “Retrospective Epilogue” in 1987. “A few years after the appearance of […] Introduction to Logical Theory, I was devoting much attention to what might be loosely called the distinction between logical and pragmatic inferences. … represented as being a matter not of logical but of pragmatic import.” (Grice 1987:374).Could he be jocular? He is emphasizing the historical role of his research. He mentions FORMALISM and INFORMALISM and notes that his own interest in maxims or desiderata of rational discourse arose from his interest to distinguish between matters of “logical inference” from those of “pragmatic inference.” Is Grice multiplying ‘inference’ beyond necessity? It would seem so. So it’s best to try to reformulate his proposal, in agreement with logical pluralism.By ‘logical inference’ Grice must mean ‘practical/alethic satisfactoriness-based inference,’ notably the syntactics and semantics (‘interpretative’) modules of his own System Q. By ‘pragmatic inference’ he must mean a third module, the pragmatic module, with his desiderata. We may say that for Grice ‘logical inference’ is deductive (and inductive), while ‘pragmatic inference’ is abductive. Let us apply this to the ‘clothes off’ exampleThe Utterer said: “Smith got into bed and took his clothes off, but I’m reporting the events in no particular order.” The ‘logical inference’ allows to treat ‘and’ as “&.” The ‘pragmatic inference’ allows the addressee to wonder what the utterer is meaning! Cf. Terres on “⊢_k” for “logical inference” and “⊢_r,” “⊢_l,” and “⊢_o,” for pragmatic inference, and where the subscripts “k,” “r,” “l” and “o” stand for ‘classical,’ ‘relevant,’ ‘linear’ and ‘ordered’ logic respectively, with each of the three sub-structural notions of “follows from” or “… yields …”  require the pragmatic enrichment of a logical constant, that ‘classical logical’ inference may retain the ‘impoverished’ version (Terres, 2019, Inquiry, p. 13). Grice himself mentions this normative dimension: “I would like to be able to think of the standard type of conversational practice not merely as something that all or most do IN FACT follow but as something that it is REASONABLE for us to follow, that we SHOULD NOT abandon.”Grice, 1989a, p.48]However, the fact that we should observe the conversational maxims may not yet be a reason for endorsing the allegedly ‘deviant’ inferential role of a logical constant in the three sub-structural logics under examination.The legitimacy of the ‘deviant’ ‘inferential role’ of each constant in each sub-structural logic emerges, rather from at least two sources.A first source is a requirement for logic (or reasoning) to be normative: that its truth-bearers [or satisfactoriness-bearers, to allow for ‘imperative’-mode inferences) are related to what Grice calls ‘psychological attitudes’ of ‘belief’ (indicative-mode inference) and ‘desire’ (imperative-mode inference) (Grice, 1975, cfr. Terres, Inquiry, 2019, p. 13). As Steinberg puts it:“Presumably, if logic is normative for thinking or reasoning, its normative force will stem, at least in part, from the fact that truth bearers which act as the relata of our consequence relation and the bearers of other logical properties are identical to (or at least are very closely related in some other way) to the objects of thinking or reasoning: the contents of one’s mental states or acts such as the content of one’s beliefs or inferences, for example.”[Steinberger, 2017a – and cf. Loar’s similar approach when construing Grice’s maxims as ‘empirical generalisations’ of ‘functional states’ for a less committed view of the embedding of logical and pragmatic inference within the scope of psychological-attitude ascriptions). A second source for the legitimacy of the ‘deviant’ inferential role is the fact that the pragmatic enrichment of the logical vocabulary (both a constant and ‘… yields …) is part, or a ‘rational-construction,’ of our psychological representation of certain utterances involving the natural counterparts of those constants.  This may NOT involve a new sense of ‘and’ which is with what Grice is fighting. While the relevant literature emphasizes “reasons to assert” (vide Table on p. 9, Terres, 2019), it is worth pointing out that the model should be applicable to what we might broadly construe as ‘deontic’ reasoning (e.g. Grice on “Arrest the intruder!” in Grice 1989, and more generally his practical syllogisms in Grice 2001). We seem to associate “assert” with ‘indicative-mode’ versions only of premise and conclusion. “Reasons to express” or “reasons to make it explicit” may serve as a generalization to cover both “indicative-mode” and “imperative-mode” versions of the inferences to hand. When Grice says that, contra Strawson, he wants to see things in terms of ‘pragmatic inference,’ not ‘logical inference,’ is he pulling himself up by his own bootstraps? Let us clarify.When thinking of what META-language need be used to formulate both Grice’s final account vis-à-vis Strawson’s, it is relevant to mention that Grice once invoked what he called the “Bootstrap” principle. In the course of considering a ‘fine distinction’ in various levels of conceptual priority, slightly out of the blue, he adds – this is from “Prejudices and predilections, which become, the life and opinions of Paul Grice,” so expect some informality, and willingness to amuse: “It is perhaps reasonable to regard such fine distinctions as indispensable if we are to succeed in the business of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps,” Grice writes. And then trust him to add: “In this connection, it will be relevant for me to say that I once invented (though I did not establish its validity) a principle which I labelled as ‘Bootstrap.’” Trust him to call with a good title. “The principle,” Grice goes on, “laid down that, when one is introducing some primitive concept [such as conjunction] of a theory [or calculus or system] formulated in an object-language [G₁], one has freedom to use any concept from a battery of concepts expressible in the meta-language [System G₂], subject to the condition that a *counterpart* of such a concept [say, ‘conjunction’] is sub-sequently definable, or otherwise derivable, in the object-language [System G₁].”Grice concludes by emphasizing the point of the manoeuvre:  “So, the more economically one introduces a primitive object-language concept, the less of a task one leaves oneself for the morrow.” [Grice 1986]. With uncharacteristic humbleness, Grice notes that while he was able to formulate and label “Bootstrap,” he never cared to establish its ‘validity.’ We hope we have! “Q. E. D.,” as they say! Cf. Terres, 2019, Inquiry, p. 17: In conclusion, the pragmatic interpretation of substructural logics may be a new and interesting research field for the logical pluralist who wishes to endorse classical and/or substructural logics, but also for the logical monist who aims to interpret their divergence with a pluralist logician. The possibility is also open of an interesting dialogue between philosophical logicians and philosophers of language as they explore the pragmatic contributions of a logical constant to the meaning of a complete utterance, given that a substructural logic encodes what has been discussed by philosophers of language, the enriched ‘explicatum’ of the logical constant. And Grice.  References: Werner Abraham, ‘A linguistic approach to metaphor.’ in Abraham, Ut videam: contributions to an understanding of linguistics. Jeffrey C. Beall and Greg Restall. ‘Logical consequence,’ in Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2009 edition, 2009. Rudolf Carnap, 1942. Introduction to Semantics. L.J. Cohen, 1971. Grice on the logical particles of natural language, in Bar-Hillel, Pragmatics of Natural language, repr. in Cohen, Language and knowledge.L.J. Cohen, 1977. ‘Can the conversationalist hypothesis be defended?’ Philosophical Studies, repr. in Cohen, Logic and knowledge. Davidson, Donald and J. Hintikka (1969). Words and objections: essays on the work of W. V. Quine. Dordrecht: Reidel. Bart Geurts, Quantity implicatures.Bart Geurts and Nausicaa Pouscoulous. Embedded implicatures?!? Semantics and pragmatics, 2:4–1, 2009.Jean-Yves Girard. Linear logic: its syntax and semantics. London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series, pp. 1–42, 1995.H.P. Grice. 1967a. ‘Prolegomena,’ in Studies in the Way of Words.H.P. Grice. 1967b. Logic and conversation. Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 22–40, 1989.H.P. Grice. 1967c. ‘Indicative conditionals. Studies in the Way of Words, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, pages 58–85, 1989.H.P. Grice. 1969. ‘Vacuous Names,’ in Words and objections: essays on the work of W. V. Quine, edited by Donald Davidson and Jaako Hintikka, Dordrecht: Reidel. H.P. Grice, 1981. ‘Presupposition and conversational implicature,’ in Paul Cole, Radical Pragmatics, New York, Academic Press. H.P. Grice, 1986. ‘Reply to Richards,’ in Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends, ed. by Richard Grandy and Richard Warner, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.H.P. Grice. 2001. Aspects of reason, being the John Locke Lectures delivered at Oxford, Oxford: Clarendon. H.P. Grice, n.d. ‘Entailment,’ The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley. Loar, B. F. Meaning and mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mates, Benson, Elementary Logic. Oxford: Clarendon Press.George Myro, 1986. ‘Time and identity,’ in Richard Grandy and Richard Warner, Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories, Ends. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Francesco Paoli, Substructural logic. Arthur Pap. 1949. ‘Are all necessary propositions analytic?’, repr. in The limits of logical empiricism.Peacocke, Christopher A. B. (1976), What is a logical constant? The Journal of Philosophy.Quine, W. V. O. 1969. ‘Reply to H. P. Grice,’ in Davidson and Hintikka, Words and objections: esssays on the work of W. V. Quine. Dordrecht: Reidel. Stephen Read, A philosophical approach to inference. A.Rieger, A simple theory of conditionals. Analysis, 2006.Robert van Rooij. 2010. ‘Conversational implicatures,’Gilbert Ryle. 1954. ‘Formal and Informal logic,’ in Dilemmas, The Tarner Lectures 1953. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 8. Florian Steinberger. The normative status of logic. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, spring 2017 edition, 2017.P. F. Strawson (1952). Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.P. F. Strawson (1986). ‘‘If’ and ‘⊃’’ R. Grandy and R. O. Warner, Philosophical Grounds of Rationality, Intentions, Categories, Ends, repr. in his “Entity and Identity, and Other Essays. Oxford: Clarendon PressJ.O. Urmson. Philosophical analysis: its development between the two world wars. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. R. C. S. Walker. “Conversational implicature,” in S. W. Blackburn, Meaning, reference, and necessity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1975, pp. 133-81A. N. Whitehead and B. A. W. Russell, 1913. Principia Mathematica. Cambridge University Press. Refs.The main published source is “Studies in the Way of Words” (henceforth, “WOW”), I (especially Essays 1 and 4), “Presupposition and conversational implicature,” in P. Cole, and the two sets on ‘Logic and conversation,’ in The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

non-conventional – When Grice learned that that brilliant Harvardite, D. K. Lewis, was writing a dissertation under Quine on ‘convention’ he almost fainted! When he noticed that Lewis was relying rightly on Schelling and mainly restricting the ‘conventionality’ to the ‘arbitrariness,’ which Grice regarded as synonym with ‘freedom’ (Willkuere, liber arbitrium), he recovered. For Lewis, a two-off predicament occurs when you REPEAT. Grice is not interested. When you repeat, you may rely on some ‘arbitrariness.’ This is usually the EMISSOR’s auctoritas. As when Humptyy Dumpty was brought to Davidson’s attention. “Impenetrability!” “I don’t know what that means.” “Well put, Alice, if that is your name, as you said it was. What I mean by ‘impenetrability’ is that we rather change the topic, plus it’s tea time, and I feel like having some eggs.” Grice refers to this as the ‘idion.’ He reminisces when he was in the bath and designed a full new highway code (“Nobody has yet used it – but the pleasure was in the semiotic design.”). A second reminiscence pertains to his writing a full grammar of “Deutero-Esperanto.” “I loved it – because I had all the power a master needs! I decide what it’s proper!” In the field of the implicata, Grice uses ‘convention’ casually, mainly to contrast it with HIS field, the non-conventional. One should not attach importance to this. On occasion Grice used Frege’s “Farbung,” just to confuse. The sad story is that Strawson was never convinced by the non-conventional. Being a conventionalist at heart (vide his “Intention and convention in speech acts,”) and revering Austin, Strawson opposes Grice’s idea of the ‘non-conventional.’ Note that in Grice’s general schema for the communicatum, the ‘conventional’ is just ONE MODE OF CORRELATION between the signum and the signatum, or the communicatum and the intentum. The ‘conventional’ can be explained, unlike Lewis, in mere terms of the validatum. Strawson and Wiggins “Cogito; ergo, sum”: What is explicitly conveyed is: “cogito”  and “sum”. The conjunction “cogito” and “sum” is

not made an ‘invalidatum’ if the implicated consequence relation, emotionally expressed by an ‘alas’-like sort of ejaculation, ‘ergo,’ fails to hold. Strawson and Wiggins give other examples. For some reason, Latin ‘ergo’ becomes the more structured, “therefore,” which is a composite of ‘there’ and ‘fore.’ Then there’s the very Hun, “so,” (as in “so so”). Then there’s the “Sie schoene aber poor,” discussed by Frege --“but,” – and Strawson and Wiggins add a few more that had Grice elaborating on first-floor versus second-floor. Descartes is on the first floor. He states “cogito” and he states “sum.” Then he goes to the second floor, and the screams, “ergo,” or ‘dunc!’” The examples Strawson and Wiggins give are: “although” (which looks like a subordinating dyadic connector but not deemed essential by Gazdar’s 16 ones). Then they give an expression Grice quite explored, “because,” or “for”

as Grice prefers (‘since it improves on Stevenson), the ejaculation “alas,” and in its ‘misusage,’ “hopefully.” This is an adverbial that Grice loved: “Probably, it will rains,” “Desirably, there is icecream.”

conversational avowal:  The phrase is a Ryleism, but Grice liked it. Grice’s point is with corrigibility or lack thereof. He recalls his tutorials with Strawson. “I want you to bring me a paper on Friday.” “You mean The Telegraph?” “You know what I mean.”  “But perhaps you don’t.”  Grice’s favourite conversational avowal, mentioned by Grice, is a declaration of an intention.. Grice starts using the phrase ‘conversational avowal’ after exploring Ryle’s rather cursory exploration of them in The Concept of Mind. This is interesting because in general Grice is an anti-ryleist. The verb is of course ‘to avow,’ which is ultimately a Latinate from ‘advocare.’ A processes or event of the soul is, on the official view, supposed to be played out in a private theatre. Such an event is known directly by the man who has them either through the faculty of introspection or the ‘phosphorescence’ of consciousness. The subject is, on this view, incorrigible—his avowals of the state of his soul cannot be corrected by others—and he is infallible—he cannot be wrong about which states he is in. The official doctrine mistakenly construes an avowals or a report of such an episode as issuing from a special sort of observation or perception of shadowy existents. We should consider some differences between two sorts of 'conversational' avowals: (i) I feel a tickle and (ii) I feel ill. If a man feels a tickle, he has a tickle, and if he has a tickle, he feels it. But if he feels ill, he may not be ill, and if he is ill, he may not feel ill. Doubtless a man’s feeling ill is some evidence for his being ill. But feeling a tickle is not evidence for his having a tickle, any more than striking a blow is evidence for the occurrence of a blow. In ‘feel a tickle’ and ‘strike a blow’, ‘tickle’ and ‘blow’ are cognate accusatives to the verbs ‘feel’ and ‘strike’. The verb and its accusative are two expressions for the same thing, as are the verbs and their accusatives in ‘I dreamt a dream’ and ‘I asked a question’. But ‘ill’ and ‘capable of climbing the tree’ are not cognate accusatives to the verb ‘to feel.' So they are not in grammar bound to signify feelings, as ‘tickle’ is in grammar bound to signify a feeling. Another purely grammatical point shows the same thing. It is indifferent whether I say ‘I feel a tickle’ or ‘I have a tickle’; but ‘I have . . .’ cannot be completed by ‘. . . ill’, (cf. ‘I have an illness’), ‘. . . capable of climbing the tree’, (cf. I have a capability to climb that tree’) ‘. . . happy’ (cf. ‘I have a feeling of happiness’ or ‘I have happiness in my life’) or ‘. . . discontented’ (cf. ‘I have a feeling of strong discontent towards behaviourism’). If we try to restore the verbal parallel by bringing in the appropriate abstract nouns, we find a further incongruity; ‘I feel happiness’(I feel as though I am experiencing happiness), ‘I feel illness’ (I feel as though I do have an illness’) or ‘I feel ability to climb the tree’ (I feel that I am endowed with the capability to climb that tree), if they mean anything, they do not mean at all what a man means by uttering ‘I feel happy,’ or ‘I feel ill,’ or ‘I feel capable of climbing the tree’. On the other hand, besides these differences between the different uses of ‘I feel . . .’ there are important CONVERSATIONAL analogies as well. If a man says that he has a tickle, his co-conversationalist does not ask for his evidence, or requires him to make quite sure. Announcing a tickle is not proclaiming the results of an investigation. A tickle is not something established by careful witnessing, or something inferred from a clue, nor do we praise for his powers of observation or reasoning a man who let us know that he feels tickles, tweaks and flutters. Just the same is true of avowals of moods. If a man makes a conversational contribution, such as‘I feel bored’, or ‘I feel depressed’, his co-conversationalist does not usually ask him for his evidence, or request him to make sure. The co-conversationalist may accuse the man of shamming to him or to himself, but the co-conversationalist does not accuse him of having been careless in his observations or rash in his inferences, since a co-conversationalist would not usually think that his conversational avowal is a report of an observation or a conclusion.  He has not been a good or a bad detective; he has not been a detective at all. Nothing would surprise us more than to hear him say ‘I feel depressed’ in the alert and judicious tone of voice of a detective, a microscopist, or a diagnostician, though this tone of voice is perfectly congruous with the NON-AVOWAL past-tense ‘I WAS feeling depressed’ or the NON-AVOWAL third-person report, ‘HE feels depressed’. If the avowal is to do its conversational job, it must be said in a depressed tone of voice. The conversational avowal must be blurted out to a sympathizer, not reported to an investigator. Avowing ‘I feel depressed’ is doing one of the things, viz. one CONVERSATIONAL thing, that depression is the mood to do. It is not a piece of scientific premiss-providing, but a piece of ‘conversational moping.’That is why, if the co-conversationalist is suspicious, he does not ask ‘Fact or fiction?’, ‘True or false?’, ‘Reliable or unreliable?’, but ‘Sincere or shammed?’ The CONVERSATIONAL avowal of moods requires not acumen, but openness. It comes from the heart, not from the head. It is not discovery, but voluntary non-concealment. Of course people have to learn how to use avowal expressions appropriately and they may not learn these lessons very well. They learn them from ordinary discussions of the moods of others and from such more fruitful sources as novels and the theatre. They learn from the same sources how to cheat both other people and themselves by making a sham conversational avowal in the proper tone of voice and with the other proper histrionic accompaniments. If we now raise the question ‘How does a man find out what mood he is in?’ one can answer that if, as may not be the case, he finds it out at all, he finds it out very much as we find it out. As we have seen, he does not groan ‘I feel bored’ because he has found out that he is bored, any more than the sleepy man yawns because he has found out that he is sleepy. Rather, somewhat as the sleepy man finds out that he is sleepy by finding, among other things, that he keeps on yawning, so the bored man finds out that he is bored, if he does find this out, by finding that among other things he glumly says to others and to himself ‘I feel bored’ and ‘How bored I feel’. Such a blurted avowal is not merely one fairly reliable index among others. It is the first and the best index, since being worded and voluntarily uttered, it is meant to be heard and it is meant to be understood. It calls for no sleuth-work.In some respects a conversational avowal of a moods, like ‘I feel cheerful,’ more closely resemble announcements of sensations like ‘I feel a tickle’ than they resemble utterances like ‘I feel better’ or ‘I feel capable of climbing the tree’. Just as it would be absurd to say ‘I feel a tickle but maybe I haven’t one’, so, in ordinary cases, it would be absurd to say ‘I feel cheerful but maybe I am not’. But there would be no absurdity in saying ‘I FEEL better but, to judge by the doctor’s attitude, perhaps I am WORSE’, or ‘I do FEEL as if I am capable of climbing the tree but maybe I cannot climb it.’This difference can be brought out in another way. Sometimes it is natural to say ‘I feel AS IF I could eat a horse’, or ‘I feel AS IF my temperature has returned to normal’. But, more more immediate conversational avowals, it would seldom if ever be natural to say ‘I feel AS IF I were in the dumps’, or ‘I feel AS IF I were bored’, any more than it would be natural to say ‘I feel AS IF I had a pain’. Not much would be gained by discussing at length why we use ‘feel’ in these different ways. There are hosts of other ways in which it is also used. I can say ‘I felt a lump in the mattress’, ‘I felt cold’, ‘I felt queer’, ‘I felt my jaw-muscles stiffen’, ‘I felt my gorge rise’, ‘I felt my chin with my thumb’, ‘I felt in vain for the lever’, ‘I felt as if something important was about to happen’, ‘I felt that there was a flaw somewhere in the argument’, ‘I felt quite at home’, ‘I felt that he was angry’. A feature common to most of these uses of ‘feel’ is that the utterer does not want further questions to be put. They would be either unanswerable questions, or unaskable questions. That he felt it is enough to settle some debates.That he merely felt it is enough to show that debates should not even begin. Names of moods, then, are not the names of feelings. But to be in a particular mood is to be in the mood, among other things, to feel certain sorts of feelings in certain sorts of situations. To be in a lazy mood, is, among other things, to tend to have sensations of lassitude in the limbs when jobs have to be done, to have cosy feelings of relaxation when the deck-chair is resumed, not to have electricity feelings when the game begins, and so forth. But we are not thinking primarily of these feelings when we say that we feel lazy; in fact, we seldom pay much heed to sensations of these kinds, save when they are abnormally acute. Is a  name of a mood a name of an emotion? The only tolerable reply is that of course they are, in that some people some of the time use ‘emotion’. But then we must add that in this usage an emotion is not something that can be segregated from thinking, daydreaming, voluntarily doing things, grimacing or feeling pangs and itches. To have the emotion, in this usage, which we ordinarily refer to as ‘being bored’, is to be in the mood to think certain sorts of thoughts, and not to think other sorts, to yawn and not to chuckle, to converse with stilted politeness, and not to talk with animation, to feel flaccid and not to feel resilient. Boredom is not some unique distinguishable ingredient, scene or feature of all that its victim is doing and undergoing. Rather it is the temporary complexion of that totality. It is not like a gust, a sunbeam, a shower or the temperature; it is like the morning’s weather.  An unstudied conversational utterance may embody an explicit interest phrase, or a conversational avowal, such as ‘I want it’, ‘I hope so’, ‘That’s what I intend’, ‘I quite dislike it’, ‘Surely I am depressed’, ‘I do wonder, too’, ‘I guess so’ and ‘I am feeling hungry.’The surface grammar (if not logical form) makes it tempting to misconstrue all the utterances as a description. But in its primary employment such a conversational avowal as ‘I want it’ is not used to convey information.‘I want it’ is used to make a request or demand. ‘I want it’ is no more meant as a contribution to general knowledge than ‘please’. For a co-conversationalist to respond with the tag ‘Do you?’ or worse, as Grice’s tutee, with ‘*how* do you *know* that you want it?’ is glaringly inappropriate. Nor, in their primary employment, are conversational avowals such as ‘I hate it’ or ‘That’s what I I intend’ used for the purpose of telling one’s addressee facts about the utterer; or else we should not be surprised to hear them uttered in the cool, informative tones of voice in which one says ‘HE hates it’ and ‘That’s what he intends’. We expect a conversational avowal, on the contrary, to be spoken in a revolted and a resolute tone of voice respectively. It is an utterances of a man in a revolted and resolute frame of mind. A conversational avowal is a thing said in detestation and resolution and not a thing said in order to advance biographical knowledge about detestations and resolutions. A man who notices the unstudied utterances of the utterer, who may or may not be himself, is, if his interest in the utterer has the appropriate direction, especially well situated to pass comments upon the qualities and frames of mind of its author.‘avowal’ as a philosophical lexeme may not invite an immediate correlate in the Graeco-Roman, ultimately Grecian, tradition. ‘Confessio’ springs to mind, but this is not what Grice is thinking about. He is more concerned with issues of privileged access and incorrigibility, or corrigibility, rather, as per the alleged immediacy of a first-person report of the form, “I feel that …” . Grice does use ‘avowal’ often especially in the early stages, when the logical scepticism about incorrigibility comes under attack. Just to be different, Grice is interested in the corrigibility of the avowal. The issue is of some importance in his account of the act of communication, and how one can disimplicate what one means. Grice loves to play with his tutee doubting as to whether he means that p or q. Except at Oxford, the whole thing has a ridiculous ring to it. I want you to bring me a paper by Friday. You mean the newspaper? You very well know what I mean. But perhaps you do not. Are you sure you mean a philosophy paper when you utter, ‘I want you to bring a paper by Friday’? As Grice notes, in case of self-deception and egcrateia, it may well be that the utterer does not know what he desires, if not what he intends, if anything. Freud and Foucault run galore. The topic will interest a collaborator of Grice’s, Pears, with his concept of ‘motivated irrationality.’ Grice likes to discuss a category mistake. I may be categorically mistaken but I am not categorically confused. Now when it comes to avowal-avowal, it is only natural that if he is interested in Aristotle on ‘hedone,’ Grice would be interested in Aristotle on ‘lupe.’ This is very philosophical, as Urmson agrees. Can one ‘fake’ pain? Why would one fake pain? Oddly, this is for Grice the origin of language. Is pleasure just the absence of pain? Liddell and Soctt have “λύπη” and render it as pain of body, oἡδον; also, sad plight or condition, but also pain of mind, grief; “ά; δῆγμα δὲ λύπης οὐδὲν ἐφ᾽ ἧπαρ προσικνεῖται; τί γὰρ καλὸν ζῆν βίοτον, ὃς λύπας φέρει; ἐρωτικὴ λ.’ λύπας προσβάλλειν;” “λ. φέρειν τινί; oχαρά.” Oddly, Grice goes back to pain in Princeton, since it is explored by Smart in his identity thesis. Take pain. Surely, Grice tells the Princetonians, it sounds harsh, to echo Berkeley, to say that it is the brain of Smith being in this or that a state which is justified by insufficient evidence; whereas it surely sounds less harsh that it is the C-fibres that constitute his ‘pain,’ which he can thereby fake. Grice distinguishes between a complete unstructured utterance token – “Ouch” – versus a complete syntactically structured erotetic utterance of the type, “Are you in pain?”. At the Jowett, Corpus Barnes has read Ogden and says ‘Ouch’ (‘Oh’) bears an ‘emotional’ or ‘emotive’ communicatum provided there is an intention there somewhere. Otherwise, no communicatum occurs. But if there is an intention, the ‘Oh’ can always be a fake. Grice distinguishes between a ‘fake’ and a ‘sneak.’ If U intends A to perceive ‘Oh’ as a fake, U means that he is in pain. If there is a sneaky intention behind the utterance, which U does NOT intend his A to recognise, there is no communicatum. Grice criticises emotivism as rushing ahead to analyse a nuance before exploring what sort of a nuance it is. Surely there is more to the allegedly ‘pseudo-descriptive’ ‘x is good,’ than U meaning that U emotionally approves of x. In his ‘myth,’ Grice uses pain magisterially as an excellent example for a privileged-access allegedly incorrigible avowal, and stage 0 in his creature progression. By uttering ‘Oh!,’ under voluntary control, Barnes means, iconically, that he is in pain. Pain fall under the broader keyword: emotion, as anger does. Cf. Aristotle on the emotion in De An., Rhet., and Eth. Nich. Knowing that at Oxford, if you are a classicist, you are not a philosopher, Grice never explores the Stoic, say, approach to pain, or lack thereof (“Which is good, since Walter Pater did it for me!”). Refs.: “Can I have a pain in my tail?” The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft Library, The University of California, Berkeley.

conversational benevolence: There is nothing other-oriented about benevolence. What Grice needs is conversational ALTRUISM, or helpfulness – ‘cooperation’ has the advantage, with the ‘co-’, of avoiding the ‘mutuality’ aspect, which is crucial (“What’s the good of helping you – I’m not your servant! – if thou art not going to help me!” It may be said that when Butler uses ‘benevolentia’ he means others. “It is usually understood that one is benevolent towards oneself, if that makes sense.” Grice writes. Then there’s Smith promising Jones a job – and the problem that comes with it. For Grice, if Smith promised a job to Jones, and Jones never gets it – “that’s Jones’s problem.” So we need to distinguish beneficentia and benevolentia. The opposite is malevolentia and maleficientia. Usually Grice states his maxims as PROHIBITIONS: “Do not say what you believe to be false” being the wittiest! So, he might just as well have appealed to or invoked a principle of absence of conversational ill-will. Grice uses ‘conversational benevolence’ narrowly, to refer to the assumption that conversationalists will agree to make a contribution appropriate to the shared purposes of the exhcnage. It contrasts with the limiting conversational self-love, which is again taken narrowly to indicate that conversationalists are assumed to be conversationally ‘benevolent,’ in the interpretation above, provided doing that does not get them into unnecessary trouble. The type of rationality that Grice sees in conversational is one that sees conversation as ‘rational co-operation.’ So it is obvious that he has to invoke some level of benevolence. When tutoring his rather egoistic tutees he had to be careful, so he hastened to add a principle of conversational self-love. It was different when lecturing outside a tutorial! In fact ‘benevolence’ here is best understood as ‘altruism’. So, if there is a principle of conversational egoism, there is a correlative principle of conversational altruism. If Grice uses ‘self-love,’ there is nothing about ‘love,’ in ‘benevolence.’ Butler may have used ‘other-love’! Even if of course we must start with the Grecians! We must not forget that Plato and Aristotle despised "autophilia", the complacency and self-satisfaction making it into the opposite of "epimeleia heautou” in Plato’s Alcibiades. Similarly, to criticize Socratic ethics as a form of egoism in opposition to a selfless care of others is inappropriate. Neither a self-interested seeker of wisdom nor a dangerous teacher of self-love, Socrates, as the master of epimeleia heautou, is the hinge between the care of self and others. One has to be careful here. A folk-etymological connection between ‘foam’ may not be needed – when the Romans had to deal with Grecian ‘aphrodite.’ This requires that we look for another linguistic botany for Grecian ‘self-love’ that Grice opposes to ‘benevolentia.’ Hesiod derives Aphrodite from “ἀφρός,” ‘sea-foam,’ interpreting the name as "risen from the foam", but most modern scholars regard this as a spurious folk etymology. Early modern scholars of classical mythology attempted to argue that Aphrodite's name was of Griceain or Indo-European origin, but these efforts have now been mostly abandoned. Aphrodite's name is generally accepted to be of non-Greek, probably Semitic, origin, but its exact derivation cannot be determined. Scholars in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, accepting Hesiod's "foam" etymology as genuine, analyzed the second part of Aphrodite's name as -odítē "wanderer" or -dítē "bright". Janda, also accepting Hesiod's etymology, has argued in favor of the latter of these interpretations and claims the story of a birth from the foam as an Indo-European mytheme. Similarly, an Indo-European compound abʰor-, very" and dʰei- "to shine" have been proposed, also referring to Eos. Other have argued that these hypotheses are unlikely since Aphrodite's attributes are entirely different from those of both Eos and the Vedic deity Ushas.A number of improbable non-Greek etymologies have also been suggested. One Semitic etymology compares Aphrodite to the Assyrian ‘barīrītu,’ the name of a female demon that appears in Middle Babylonian and Late Babylonian texts. Hammarström looks to Etruscan, comparing eprϑni "lord", an Etruscan honorific loaned into Greek as πρύτανις.This would make the theonym in origin an honorific, "the lady".Most scholars reject this etymology as implausible, especially since Aphrodite actually appears in Etruscan in the borrowed form Apru (from Greek Aphrō, clipped form of Aphrodite). The medieval Etymologicum Magnum offers a highly contrived etymology, deriving Aphrodite from the compound habrodíaitos (ἁβροδίαιτος), "she who lives delicately", from habrós and díaita. The alteration from b to ph is explained as a "familiar" characteristic of Greek "obvious from the Macedonians". It is much easier with the Romans.  Lewis and Short have ‘ămor,’ old form “ămŏs,” “like honos, labos, colos, etc.’ obviously from ‘amare,’ and which they render as ‘love,’ as in Grice’s “conversational self-love.” Your tutor will reprimand you if you spend too much linguistic botany on ‘eros.’ “Go straight to ‘philos.’” But no. There are philosophical usages of ‘eros,’ especially when it comes to the Grecian philosophers Grice is interested in: Aristotle reading Plato, which becomes Ariskant reading Plathegel. So, Liddell and Scott have “ἔρως” which of course is from a verb, or two: “ἕραμαι,” “ἐράω,” and which they render as “love, mostly of the sexual passion, ““θηλυκρατὴς ἔ.,” “ἐρῶσ᾽ ἔρωτ᾽ ἔκδημον,” “ἔ. τινός love for one, S.Tr.433, “παίδων” E. Ion67, and “generally, love of a thing, desire for it,” ““πατρῴας γῆς” “δεινὸς εὐκλείας ἔ.” “ἔχειν ἔμφυτον ἔρωτα περί τι” Plato, Lg. 782e ; “πρὸς τοὺς λόγους” (love of law), “ἔρωτα σχὼν τῆς Ἑλλάδος τύραννος γενέσθαι” Hdt.5.32 ; ἔ. ἔχει με c. inf., A.Supp.521 ; “θανόντι κείνῳ συνθανεῖν ἔρως μ᾽ ἔχει” S.Fr.953 ; “αὐτοῖς ἦν ἔρως θρόνους ἐᾶσθαι” Id.OC367 ; ἔ. ἐμπίπτει μοι c. inf., A.Ag.341, cf. Th.6.24 ; εἰς ἔρωτά τινος ἀφικέσθαι, ἐλθεῖν, Antiph.212.3,Anaxil.21.5 : pl., loves, amours, “ἀλλοτρίων” Pi.N.3.30 ; “οὐχ ὅσιοι ἔ.” E.Hipp.765 (lyr.) ; “ἔρωτες ἐμᾶς πόλεως” Ar.Av.1316 (lyr.), etc. ; of dolphins, “πρὸς παῖδας” Arist.HA631a10 : generally, desires, S.Ant.617 (lyr.). 2. object of love or desire, “ἀπρόσικτοι ἔρωτες” Pi.N.11.48, cf. Luc.Tim.14. 3. passionate joy, S.Aj.693 (lyr.); the god of love, Anacr.65, Parm.13, E.Hipp.525 (lyr.), etc.“Έ. ἀνίκατε μάχαν” S.Ant.781 (lyr.) : in pl., Simon.184.3, etc. III. at Nicaea, a funeral wreath, EM379.54. IV. name of the κλῆρος Ἀφροδίτης, Cat.Cod.Astr.1.168 ; = third κλῆρος, Paul.Al.K.3; one of the τόποι, Vett.Val.69.16. And they’ll point to you that the Romans had ‘amor’ AND ‘cupidus’ (which they meant as a transliteration of epithumia). If for Kant and Grice it is the intention that matters, ill-will counts. If Smith does not want Jones have a job, Smith has ill-will towards Jones. This is all Kant and Grice need to call Smith a bad person. It means it is the ill-will that causes Joness not having a job. A conceptual elucidation. Interesting from a historical point of view seeing that Grice had introduced a principle of conversational benevolence (i.e. conversational goodwill) pretty early. Malevolentia was over-used by Cicero, translating the Grecian. Grice judges that if Jones fails to get the job that benevolent Smith promised, Smith may still be deemed, for Kant, if not Aristotle, to have given him the job. A similar elucidation was carried by Urmson with his idea of supererogation (heroism and sainthood). For a hero or saint, someones goodwill but not be good enough! Which does not mean it is ill, either! Refs.: The source is Grice’s seminar in the first set on ‘Logic and conversation.’ The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

conversational category: used jocularly by Grice. He knows that Kant has TWELVE categories, but he keeps lecturing the Harvardites about Kant having FOUR categories. On top, he finds ‘modus’ boring, and, turned a manierist, changes the idiom. This is what Austin called a ‘philosophical hack’ searching for some para-philosophy! One has to be careful here. Grice does speak of this or that ‘conversational category.’ Seeing that he is ‘echoing,’ as he puts it, Ariskant, we migt just as well have an entry for each of the four. These would be the category of conversational quantity, the category of conversational quality, the category of conversational relation, and the category of conversational modality. Note that in this rephrasing Grice applies ‘conversational’ directly to the category. As Boethius pointed out (and Grice loved to read Minio-Paullelo’s edition of Boethus’s commentary on the Categories), the motivation by Aristotle to posit this or that category was expository. A mind cannot know a multitude of things, so we have to ‘reduce’ things. It is important to note that while ‘quantitas,’ ‘qualitas’ ‘relatio’ and ‘modus’ are used by Kant, he actually augments the number of categories. These four would be supra-categories. The sub-categories, or categories themselves turn out to be twelve. Kant proposed 12 categories: unity, plurality, and totality for concept of quantity; reality, negation, and limitation, for the concept of quality; inherence and subsistence, cause and effect, and community for the concept of relation; and possibility-impossibility, existence-nonexistence, and necessity and contingency. Kategorien sind nach Kant apriorisch und unmittelbar gegeben. Sie sind Werkzeuge des Urteilens und Werkzeuge des Denkens. Als solche dienen sie nur der Anwendung und haben keine Existenz. Sie bestehen somit nur im menschlichen Verstand. Sie sind nicht an Erfahrung gebunden.^[5] Durch ihre Unmittelbarkeit sind sie auch nicht an Zeichen gebunden.^[6] Kants erkenntnistheoretisches Ziel ist es, über die Bedingungen der Geltungskraft von Urteilen Auskunft zu geben. Ohne diese Auskunft können zwar vielerlei Urteile gefällt werden, sie müssen dann allerdings als „systematische Doktrin(en)“ bezeichnet werden.^[7] Kant kritisiert damit das rein analytische Denken der Wissenschaft als falsch und stellt ihm die Notwendigkeit des synthetisierenden Denkens gegenüber.^[8] Kant begründet die Geltungskraft mit dem Transzendentalen Subjekt.^[9] Das Transzendentalsubjekt ist dabei ein reiner Reflexionsbegriff, welcher das synthetisierende Dritte darstellt (wie in späteren Philosophien Geist (Hegel), Wille, Macht, Sprache und Wert (Marx)), das nicht durch die Sinne wahrnehmbar ist. Kant sucht hier die Antwort auf die Frage, wie der Mensch als vernunftbegabtes Wesen konstituiert werden kann, nicht in der Analyse, sondern in einer Synthesis.^[10]Bei Immanuel Kant, der somit als bedeutender Erneuerer der bis dahin „vorkritischen“ Kategorienlehre gilt, finden sich zwölf „Kategorien der reinen Vernunft“. Für Kant sind diese Kategorien Verstandesbegriffe, nicht aber Ausdruck des tatsächlichen Seins der Dinge an sich. Damit wandelt sich die ontologische Sichtweise der Tradition in eine erkenntnistheoretische Betrachtung, weshalb Kants „kritische“ Philosophie (seit der Kritik der reinen Vernunft) oft auch als „Kopernikanische Wende in der Philosophie“ bezeichnet wird.Quantität, Qualität, Relation und Modalität sind die vier grundlegenden Urteilsfunktionen des Verstandes, nach denen die Kategorien gebildet werden. Demnach sind z. B. der Urteilsfunktion „Quantität“ die Kategorien bzw. Urteile „Einheit“, „Vielheit“ und „Allheit“ untergeordnet, und der Urteilsfunktion „Relation“ die Urteile der „Ursache“ und der „Wirkung“.Siehe auch: Kritik der reinen Vernunft und Transzendentale AnalytikBereits bei Friedrich Adolf Trendelenburg findet man den Hinweis auf die verbreitete Kritik, dass Kant die den Kategorien zugrunde liegenden Urteilsformen nicht systematisch hergeleitet und damit als notwendig begründet hat. Einer der Kritikpunkte ist dabei, dass die Kategorien sich teilweise auf Anschauungen (Einzelheit, Realität, Dasein), teilweise auf Abstraktionen wie Zusammenfassen, Begrenzen oder Begründen (Vielheit, Allheit, Negation, Limitation, Möglichkeit, Notwendigkeit) beziehen.

conversational co-öperation: Grice is perfectly right that ‘helpfulness’ does not ‘equate’ cooperation. His earlier principle of conversational helpfulness becomes the principle of conversational co-operation.Tthere is a distinction between mutual help and cooperation. First, the Romans never knew. Their ‘servants’ were ‘help’ – and this remains in the British usage of ‘civil servant,’ one who helps. Some philosophical tutees by Hare were often reminded, in the midst of their presenting their essays, “Excuse me for interrupting, Smith, but have you considered a career in the civil service?” Then some Romans found Christianism fashionable, and they were set to translate the Bible. So when this Hebrew concept appeared, they turned it into ad-judicatum, which was translated by Wycliff as ‘help.’ Now ‘operatio’ is quite a different animal. It’s the ‘opus’ of the Romans, who also had ‘labor.’ Surely to ‘co-laborate’ is to ‘co-operate.’ There is an idea that ‘operate,’ can be more otiose, in the view of Rogers Albritton. “He is operating the violin,” was his favourite utterance. “Possibly his opus 5.” The fact that English needs a hyphen and an umlaut does not make it very ‘ordinary’ in Austin’s description. Grice is more interested in the conceptualization of this, notably as it relates to rationality. Can cooperation NOT be rational? For most libertarians, cooperation IS “irrational,” rather. But Grice points is subtler. He is concerned with an emissor communicating that p. The least thing he deserves is a rational recipient. “Otherwise I might just as well scream to the walls!” Used by Grice WOW:368 – previously, ‘rational cooperation’ – what cooperation is not rational? Grice says that if Smith promised Jones a job; Jones doesn’t get it. Smith must be DEEMED to have given the job to Jones. It’s the intention, as Kant shows, the pure motive, that matters. Ditto for communication. If Blackburn draws a skull, he communicates that there is danger. If his addressee fails to recognise the emissor’s intention the emissor will still be deemed to have communicated that there is danger. So communication does NOT require co-operation. His analysis of “emissor communicates that p” is not one of “emissor successfully communicates that p,” because “communicates” reduces to “intends” not to ‘fulfilled intention.’ Cooperation enters when we go beyond ONE act of communication. To communicate is to give information and to influence another, and it is also to receive information and to be influenced by another. When these communicative objectives are made explicit, helpfulness or cooperation becomes essential. He uses ‘converational cooperation” and “supreme principle of conversational cooperation” (369). He uses ‘supreme conversational principle” of “cooperativeness” (369), to avoid seeing the conversational imperatives as an unorganized heap of conversational obligations. Another variant is Grice’s use of “principle of conversational co-operation.” He also uses “principle of conversational rational co-operation.” Note that irrational or non-rational co-operation is not an oxymoron. Another expression is conversational cooperative rationality. So Grice was amused that you can just as well refer to ‘cooperative rationality” or “rational cooperation,” “a category shift if ever there was one.”

conversational explicitum: To be explicit is bad manners at Oxford if not in Paris or MIT. The thing is to imply! Englishmen are best at implying – their love for understatement is unequalled in the world. Grice needs the explicatio, or explicit. Because the mistake the philosopher makes is at the level of the implicatio, as Nowell-Smith, and C. K. Grant had noted. It is not OBVIOUSLY at the explicit level. Grice was never interested in the explicit level, and takes a very cavalier attitude to it. “This brief indication of my use of say leaves it open whether a man who says (today) Harold Wilson is a great man and another who says (also today) The British Prime Minister is a great man would, if each knew that the two singular terms had the same reference, have said the same thing. But whatever decision is made about this question, the apparatus that I am about to provide will be capable of accounting for any implicatures that might depend on the presence of one rather than another of these singular terms in the sentence uttered. Such implicatures would merely be related to different maxims.”Rephrase: “A brief indication of my use of ‘the explicit’ leaves it open whether a man who states (today), ‘Harold Wilson is a great man’ thereby stating that Wilson is a great man, and another who states (also today),‘The British Prime Minister is a great man,’ viz. that the Prime Minister is a great mand, would, if each singular term, ‘the Prime Minister’ and ‘Wilson’ has the same denotatum (co-relata) have put forward in an explicit fashion the same propositional complex, and have stated the same thing. On the face of it, it would seem they have not. But cf. ‘Wilson will be the prime minister’ versus ‘Wilson shall be the prime minister.’ Again, a subtler question arises as to whether the first emissor who has stated that Wilson will be the next prime minster and the other one who has stated that Wilson *shall* be the next prime minster, have both but forward the same proposition. If the futurm indicatum is ENTAILED by the futurum intentionale, the question is easy to settle. Whatever methodological decision or stipulation I end up making about the ‘explicitum,’ the apparatus that I rely on is capable of accounting for any implicatum that might depend on the presence of this or that singular term in the utterance. Such an implicatum would merely be related to a different conversational maxims. Urmson has elaborated on this, “Mrs. Smith’s husband just passed by.” “You mean the postman! Why did you use such contrived ‘signular term’?” If the emissor draws a skull what he explicitly conveys is that this is a skull. This is the EPLICITUM. If he communicates that there is danger, that’s via some further reasoning. That associates a skull with death. Grice’s example is Grice displaying his bandaged leg. Strictly, he communicates that he has a bandaged leg. Second, that his leg is bandaged (the bandage may be fake). And third, that he cannot play cricket. It all started in Oxford when they started to use ‘imply’ in a sense other than the ‘logical’ one. This got Grice immersed in a deep exploration of types of ‘implication.’ There is the implicatum, and the implicitum, both from ‘implico.’ As correlative there is the explicatio, which yields both the explicatum and the explicitum. Grice has under the desideratum of conversational clarity that a conversationalist is assumed to make the point of his conversational contribution ‘explicit.’ So in his polemic with G. A. Paul, Grice knows that the ‘doubt-or-denial’ condition will be at the level NOT of the explicitum or explicatum. Surely an implicatum can be CANCELLED explicitly. Grice uses ‘contextual’ or ‘explicit,’ here but grants that the ‘contextual’ may be subsumed under the ‘explicit.’  It is when the sub-perceptual utterance is copulated with the formulation of the explicatum of the implicatum that Grice shows G. A. Paul that the statement is still ‘true,’ and which Grice sees as a reivindication of the causal theory of perception. In the twenty or so examples of philosophical mistakes, both in “Causal” and “Prolegomena,” all the mistakes can be rendered back to the ‘explicatum’ versus ‘implicatum’ distinction. Unfortunately, each requires a philosophical background to draw all the ‘implications,’ and Grice has been read by people without a philosophical background who go on to criticise him for ignoring things where he never had focused his attention on. His priority is to deal with these philosophical mistakes. He also expects the philosopher to come up with a general methodological statement. Grice distinguishes between the conversational explicitum and the conversational explicatum. Grice plays with ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’ at various places. He often uses ‘explicit’and ‘implicit’ adverbially: the utterer explicitly conveys that p versus the utterer implicitly conveys that p (hints that p, suggests that p, indicates that p, implicates that p, implies that p). Grice regards that both dimensions form part of the total act of signification, accepting as a neutral variant, that the utterer has signified that p.

conversational game: In a conversational game, you don’t say “The pillar box seems red” if you know it IS red. So, philosophers at Oxford (like Austin, Strawson, Hare, Hampshire, and Hart) are all victims of ignoring the rules of the game, and just not understanding that a game is being played.  the expression is used by Grice systematically. He speaks of players making the conversational move in the conversational game following the conversational rule, v. rational choice

conversational helpfulness: Grice is right that ‘cooperation’ does NOT equate ‘helpfulness’ and he appropriately changes  his earlier principle of conversational helpfulness to a principle of conversational co-operation. Was there a Graeco-Roman equivalent for Anglo-Saxon ‘help’? helpmeet (n.) a ghost word from the 1611 translation of the Bible, where it originally was a two-word noun-adjective phrase translating Latin adjutorium simile sibi [Genesis ii.18] as "an help meet for him," and meaning literally "a helper like himself." See help (n.) + meet (adj.). By 1670s it was hyphenated help-meet and mistaken as a modified noun. Compare helpmate. The original Hebrew is 'ezer keneghdo. Related entries & more   aid (v.) "to assist, help," c. 1400, from Old French aidier "help, assist" (Modern French aider), from Latin adiutare, frequentative of adiuvare (past participle adiutus) "to give help to," from ad "to" (see ad-) + iuvare "to help, assist, give strength, support, sustain," which is from a PIE source perhaps related to the root of iuvenis "young person" (see young (adj.)). Related: Aided; aiding. Related entries & more   succor (n.) c. 1200, socour, earlier socours "aid, help," from Anglo-French succors "help, aid," Old French socors, sucurres "aid, help, assistance" (Modern French secours), from Medieval Latin succursus "help, assistance," from past participle of Latin succurrere "run to help, hasten to the aid of," from assimilated form of sub "up to" (see sub-) + currere "to run" (from PIE root *kers- "to run"). Final -s mistaken in English as a plural inflection and dropped late 13c. Meaning "one who aids or helps" is from c. 1300. There is a fashion in which to help is to cooperate, but co-operate, strictly, requires operation by A and operation by B. We do use cooperate loosely. “She is very cooperative.” “Help” seems less formal. One can help without ever engaging or honouring the other’s goal. I can help you buy a house, say. So the principle of conversational cooperation is stricter and narrower than the principle of conversational helpfulness. Cooperation involves reciprocity and mutuality in a way that helpfulness does not. That’s why Grice needs to emphasise that there is an expectation of MUTUAL helpfulness. One is expected to be helpful, and one expects the other to be helpful. Grice was doubtful about the implicature of ‘co-operative,’ – after all, who at Oxford wants a ‘co-operative.’ It sounds anti-Oxonian. So Grice elaborates on ‘helping others’ and ‘assuming others will help you’ in the event that we ‘are doing something together.’ Does this equate cooperation, he wonders. Just in case, he uses ‘helpfulness’ as a variant. There are other concepts he plays with, notably ‘altruism,’ and ‘benevolence,’ or other-love.’Helpfulness is Grice’s favourite virtue. Grice is clear that reciprocity is essential here. One exhibits helpfulness and expects helpfulness from his conversational partner. He dedicates a set of seven lectures to it, entitled as follows. Lecture 1, Prolegomena; Lecture 2: Logic and Conversation; Lecture 3: Further notes on logic and conversation; Lecture 4: Indicative conditionals; Lecture 5: Us meaning and intentions; Lecture 6: Us meaning, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning; and Lecture 7: Some models for implicature. I hope they dont expect me to lecture on James! Grice admired James, but not vice versa. Grice entitled the set as being Logic and Conversation. That is the title, also, of the second lecture. Grice keeps those titles seeing that it was way the whole set of lectures were frequently cited, and that the second lecture had been published under that title in Davidson and Harman, The Logic of Grammar. The content of each lecture is indicated below. In the first, Grice manages to quote from Witters. In the last, he didnt!  The original set consisted of seven lectures. To wit: Prolegomena, Logic and conversation, Further notes on logic and conversation, Indicative Conditionals, Us meaning and intentions, Us meaning, sentence-meaning, and word meaning, and Some models for implicature. They were pretty successful at Oxford. While the notion of an implicatum had been introduced by Grice at Oxford, even in connection with a principle of conversational helpfulness, he takes the occasion now to explore the type of rationality involved. Observation of the principle of conversational helpfulness is rational (reasonable) along the following lines: anyone who cares about the two central goals to conversation (give/receive information, influence/be influened) is expected to have an interest in participating in a conversation that is only going to be profitable given that it is conducted along the lines set by the principle of conversational helpfulness. In Prolegomena he lists Austin, Strawson, Hare, Hart, and himself, as victims of a disregard for the implicatum. In the third lecture he introduces his razor, Senses are not to be muliplied beyond necessity. In Indicative conditionals he tackles Strawson on if as not representing the horse-shoe of Whitehead and Russell. The next two lectures on the meaning by the utterer and intentions, and meaning by the utterer, sentence-meaning, and word-meaning refine his earlier, more austere, account of this particularly Peirceian phenomenon. He concludes the lectures with an exploration on the relevance of the implicatum to philosophical psychology. Grice was well aware that many philosophers had become enamoured with the s. and would love to give it a continuous perusal. The set is indeed grandiose. It starts with a Prolegomena to set the scene: He notably quotes himself in it, which helps, but also Strawson, which sort of justifies the general title. In the second lecture, Logic and Conversation, he expands on the principle of conversational helpfulness and the explicitum/implicatum distinction – all very rationalist! The third lecture is otiose in that he makes fun of Ockham: Senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. The fourth lecture, on Indicative conditionals, is indeed on MOST of the formal devices he had mentioned on Lecture II, notably the functors (rather than the quantifiers and the iota operator, with which he deals in Presupposition and conversational implicature, since, as he notes, they refer to reference). This lecture is the centrepiece of the set. In the fifth lecture, he plays with mean, and discovers that it is attached to the implicatum or the implicitum. In the sixth lecture, he becomes a nominalist, to use Bennetts phrase, as he deals with dog and shaggy in terms of this or that resultant procedure. Dont ask me what they are! Finally, in “Some models for implicature,” he attacks the charge of circularity, and refers to nineteenth-century explorations on the idea of thought without language alla Wundt. I dont think a set of James lectures had even been so comprehensive! Conversational helpfulness. This is Grice at his methodological best. He was aware that the type of philosophying he was about to criticise wass a bit dated, but whats wrong with being old-fashioned? While this may be seen as a development of his views on implicature at that seminal Oxford seminar, it may also be seen as Grice popularising the views for a New-World, non-Oxonian audience. A discussion of Oxonian philosophers of the play group of Grice, notably Austin, Hare, Hart, and Strawson. He adds himself for good measure (“Causal theory”). Philosophers, even at Oxford, have to be careful with the attention that is due to general principles of discourse. Grice quotes philosophers of an earlier generation, such as Ryle, and some interpreters or practitioners of Oxonian analysis, such as Benjamin and Searle. He even manages to quote from Witterss Philosophical investigations, on seeing a banana as a banana. There are further items in the Grice collection that address Austins manoeuvre, Austin on ifs and cans, Ifs and cans, : conditional, power.  Two of Grices favourites. He opposed Strawsons view on if. Grice thought that if was the horseshoe of Whitehead and Russell, provided we add an implicatum to an entailment. The can is merely dispositional, if not alla Ryle, alla Grice! Ifs and cans, intention, disposition. Austin had brought the topic to the fore as an exploration of free will. Pears had noted that conversational implicature may account for the conditional perfection (if yields iff). Cf. Ayers on Austin on if and can. Recall that for Grice the most idiomatic way to express a disposition is with the Subjectsive mode, the if, and the can ‒ The ice can break. Cf. the mistake: It is not the case that what you must do, you can do. The can-may distinction is one Grice played with too. As with will and shall, the attachment of one mode to one of the lexemes is pretty arbitrary and not etymologically justified ‒ pace Fowler on it being a privilege of this or that Southern Englishman as Fowler is. If he calls it Prolegomena, he is being jocular. Philosophers Mistakes would have been too provocative. Benjamin, or rather Broad, erred, and so did Ryle, and Ludwig Witters, and my friends, Austin (the mater that wobbled), and in order of seniority, Hart (I heard him defend this about carefully – stopping at every door in case a dog comes out at breakneck speed), Hare (To say good is to approve), and Strawson (“Logical theory”: To utter if p, q is to implicate some inferrability, To say true! is to endorse – Analysis). If he ends with Searle, he is being jocular. He quotes Searle from an essay in British philosophy in Lecture I, and from an essay in Philosophy in America in Lecture V. He loved Searle, and expands on the Texas oilmens club example! We may think of Grice as a linguistic botanizer or a meta-linguistic botanizer: his hobby was to collect philosophers mistakes, and he catalogued them. In Causal theory he produces his first list of seven. The pillar box seems red to me. One cannot see a dagger as a dagger. Moore didnt know that the objects before him were his own hands. What is actual is not also possible. For someone to be called responsible, his action should be condemnable. A cause must be given only of something abnormal or unusual (cf. ætiology). If you know it, you dont believe it. In the Prolegomena, the taxonomy is more complicated. Examples A (the use of an expression, by Austin, Benjamin, Grice, Hart, Ryle, Wittgenstein), Examples B (Strawson on and, or, and especially if), and Examples C (Strawson on true and Hare on good – the performative theories). But even if his taxonomy is more complicated, he makes it more SO by giving other examples as he goes on to discuss how to assess the philosophical mistake. Cf. his elaboration on trying, I saw Mrs. Smith cashing a cheque, Trying to cash a cheque, you mean. Or cf. his remarks on remember, and There is an analogy here with a case by Wittgenstein. In summary, he wants to say. Its the philosopher who makes his big mistake. He has detected, as Grice has it, some conversational nuance. Now he wants to exploit it. But before rushing ahead to exploit the conversational nuance he has detected, or identified, or collected in his exercise of linguistic botanising, the philosopher should let us know with clarity what type of a nuance it is. For Grice wants to know that the nuance depends on a general principle (of goal-directed behaviour in general, and most likely rational) governing discourse – that participants in a conversation should be aware of, and not on some minutiæ that has been identified by the philosopher making the mistake, unsystematically, and merely descriptively, and taxonomically, but without ONE drop of explanatory adequacy. The fact that he directs this to his junior Strawson is the sad thing. The rest are all Grices seniors! The point is of philosophical interest, rather than other. And he keeps citing philosophers, Tarski or Ramsey, in the third James leture, to elaborate the point about true in Prolegomena. He never seems interested in anything but an item being of philosophical interest, even if that means HIS and MINE! On top, he is being Oxonian: Only at Oxford my colleagues were so obsessed, as it has never been seen anywhere else, about the nuances of conversation. Only they were all making a big mistake in having no clue as to what the underlying theory of conversation as rational co-operation would simplify things for them – and how! If I introduce the explicatum as a concession, I shall hope I will be pardoned! Is Grices intention epagogic, or diagogic in Prolegomena? Is he trying to educate Strawson, or just delighting in proving Strawson wrong? We think the former. The fact that he quotes himself shows that Grice is concerned with something he still sees, and for the rest of his life will see, as a valid philosophical problem. If philosophy generated no problems it would be dead. Refs.: The main sources are the two sets on ‘logic and conversation.’ There are good paraphrases in other essays when he summarises his own views, as he did at Urbana. The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

conversational imperative: The problem with ‘command’ is that for Habermas, it springs from ‘power,’ and we need to have it sprung from ‘auctoritas,’ rather – the voice of reason, that is – “Impero” gives also pre-pare. “Imperare, prepare, etc. What was the Greek for ‘imperative mode’? προστακτική prostaktike. προσ-τακτικός , ή, όν, A.of or for commanding, imperative, imperious, τὸ π. [ἡ ψυχή], opp. τὸ ὑπηρετικόν (of the body), Arist.Top.128b19; “π. τινῶν” Corn.ND16; “λόγος” Plu.2.1037f; Προστακτικός (sc. λόγος), title of work by Protagoras, D.L.9.55; “βραχυλογία” Plu.Phoc.5; also of persons, “ἄρχων” Max.Tyr.13.2 (Sup.). II. Gramm., ἡ -κὴ ἔγκλισις the imperative mood, D.T.638.7, A.D.Synt.31.20; π. ἐκφορὰ τῶν ῥημάτων ib.69.20; “τὸ π. σχῆμα” Anon.Fig.24; also “τὸ -κόν” D.L. 7.66,67, Ps.-Plu.Vit.Hom.53. Adv. “-κῶς” in the imperative mood, D.H.4.18, Sch.Ar.Av.1163.Grice became famous for his ‘maxims,’ which in Nowell-Smith’s view they are more like rules of etiquette for sylish conversation. As such, many had been proposed. But Grice proposes them AS A PHILOSOPHER would, and ONLY TO REBUFF the mistake made by this or that philosopher who would rather EXPLAIN the phenomenon in terms OTHER than involving as PART OF THE DATA, i. e. as a datum (as he says) or assumption, that there are these ‘assumptions,’ which guide behaviour. Grice is having in mind Kant’s “Imperativ.” He also uses ‘conversational objective.” In most versions that Grice provides of the ‘general expectations’ of rational discourse, he chooses the obvious imperative form. On occasion he does use ‘imperative.’ Grice is vague as to the term of choice for this or that ‘expectation.’ According to Strawson, Grice even once used ‘conversational rule,’ and he does use ‘conversational rule of the conversational game of making this or that conversational move.’ Notably, he also uses ‘conversational principle,’ and ‘conversational desideratum.’ And ‘maxim’! And ‘conversational directive (371), and ‘conversational obligation’ (369). By ‘conversational maxim,’ he means ‘conversational maxim.’ He uses ‘conversational sub-maxim’ very occasionally. He rather uses ‘conversational super-maxim.’ He uses ‘immanuel,’ and he uses ‘conversational immanuel.’ It is worth noting that the choice of word influences the exegesis. Loar takes these things to be ‘empirical generalisations over functional states’! And Grice agrees that there is a dull, empiricist way, in which these things can be seen as things people conform to. There is a quasi-contractualist approach to: things people convene on. And there is an Ariskantian approach: things people SHOULD abide by. Surely Grice is not requiring that the conversationalists ARE explicitly or consciously AWARE of these things. There is a principle of effort of economical reason to cope with that!

conversational implicatum. A joke. Surely if he is going to use ‘implicatum’ in Roman, this would be ‘implicatum conversationale,’ if there were such thing. And there were! The Roman is formed from cum- plus ‘verso.’ So there’s Roman ‘conversatio.’ And –alis, ale is a productive suffix.  Or implicitum. Grice is being philosophical and sticking with ‘implicatio’ as used by logicians. Implicitum does not have much of a philosophical pedigree. But even ‘implicatio’ was not THAT used, ‘consequentia’ was preferred, as in ‘non sequitur, and seguitur, quod demonstrandumm erat. Strawson criticism of ‘the,’ only tentative by Grice, unlike ‘if,’ so forgivable! See common-ground status. Grice loved an implicatum. The use of ‘conversational’ by Grice is NEVER emphatic. In his detailed, even fastidious, taxonomy of ‘implication,’ he decisively does not want to have a mere conventional implicatum (as in “She was poor but she was honest”) as conversational. Not even a “Thank you”, generated by the maxim “be polite.” That would be an implicatum which is nonconventional and yet NOT conversational, because ‘be polite’ is NOT a conversational maxim (moral, aesthetic, and social maxims are not). And an implicature. An elaboration of his Oxonian seminar on Logic and conversation. Theres a principle of conversational helpfulness, which includes a desideratum of conversational candour and a desideratum of conversational clarity, and the sub-principle of conversational self-interest clashing with the sub-principle of conversational benevolence. The whole point of the manoeuvre is to provide a rational basis for a conversational implicatum, as his term of art goes. Observation of the principle of conversational helpfulness is rational/reasonable along the following lines: anyone who is interested in the two goals conversation is supposed to serve ‒ give/receive information, influence/be influenced ‒ should only care to enter a conversation that will be only profitable under the assumption that it is conducted in accordance with the principle of conversational helfpulness, and attending desiderata and sub-principles. Grice takes special care in listing tests for the proof that an implicatum is conversational in this rather technical usage: a conversational implicatum is rationally calculable (it is the content of a psychological state, attitude or stance that the addressee assigns to the utterer on condition that he is being helpful), non-detachable, indeterminate, and very cancellable, thus never part of the sense and never an entailment of this or that piece of philosophical vocabulary, in Davidson and Harman, the logic of Grammar, also in Cole and Morgan, repr. in a revised form in Grice, logic and conversation, the second James lecture, : principle of conversational helpfulness, implicatum, cancellability. While the essay was also repr. by Cole and Morgan. Grice always cites it from the two-column reprint in The Logic of Grammar, ed. by Davidson and Harman. Most people without a philosophical background first encounter Grice through this essay. A philosopher usually gets first acquainted with his In defence of a dogma, or Meaning. In Logic and Conversation, Grice re-utilises the notion of an implicatum and the principle of conversational helpfulness that he introduced at Oxford to a more select audience. The idea Grice is that the observation of the principle of conversational helfpulness is rational (reasonable) along the following lines: anyone who is concerned with the two goals which are central to conversation (to give/receive information, to influence/be influenced) should be interested in participating in a conversation that is only going to be profitable on the assumption that it is conducted along the lines of the principle of conversational helfpulness. Grices point is methodological. He is not at all interested in conversational exchanges as such. Unfortunately, the essay starts in media res, and skips Grices careful list of Oxonian examples of disregard for the key idea of what a conversant implicates by the conversational move he makes. His concession is that there is an explicatum or explicitum (roughly, the logical form) which is beyond pragmatic constraints. This concession is easily explained in terms of his overarching irreverent, conservative, dissenting rationalism. This lecture alone had been read by a few philosophers leaving them confused. I do not know what Davidson and Harman were thinking when they reprinted just this in The logic of grammar. I mean: it is obviously in media res. Grice starts with the logical devices, and never again takes the topic up. Then he explores metaphor, irony, and hyperbole, and surely the philosopher who bought The logic of grammar must be left puzzled. He has to wait sometime to see the thing in full completion. Oxonian philosophers would, out of etiquette, hardly quote from unpublished material! Cohen had to rely on memory, and thats why he got all his Grice wrong! And so did Strawson in If and the horseshoe. Even Walker responding to Cohen is relying on memory. Few philosophers quote from The logic of grammar. At Oxford, everybody knew what Grice was up to. Hare was talking implicature in Mind, and Pears was talking conversational implicature in Ifs and cans. And Platts was dedicating a full chapter to “Causal Theory”. It seems the Oxonian etiquette was to quote from Causal Theory. It was obvious that Grices implication excursus had to read implicature! In a few dictionaries of philosophy, such as Hamlyns, under implication, a reference to Grices locus classicus Causal theory is made – Passmore quotes from Causal theory in Hundred years of philosophy. Very few Oxonians would care to buy a volume published in Encino. Not many Oxonian philosophers ever quoted The logic of grammar, though. At Oxford, Grices implicata remained part of the unwritten doctrines of a few. And philosophers would not cite a cajoled essay in the references. The implicatum allows a display of truth-functional Grice. For substitutional-quantificational Grice we have to wait for his treatment of the. In Prolegomena, Grice had quoted verbatim from Strawsons infamous idea that there is a sense of inferrability with if. While the lecture covers much more than if (He only said if; Oh, no, he said a great deal more than that! the title was never meant to be original. Grice in fact provides a rational justification for the three connectives (and, or, and if) and before that, the unary functor not. Embedding, Indicative conditionals: embedding, not and If, Sinton on Grice on denials of indicative conditionals, not, if. Strawson had elaborated on what he felt was a divergence between Whiteheads and Russells horseshoe, and if. Grice thought Strawsons observations could be understood in terms of entailment + implicatum (Robbing Peter to Pay Paul). But problems, as first noted to Grice, by Cohen, of Oxford, remain, when it comes to the scope of the implicatum within the operation of, say, negation. Analogous problems arise with implicata for the other earlier dyadic functors, and and or, and Grice looks for a single explanation of the phenomenon.  The qualification indicative is modal. Ordinary language allows for if utterances to be in modes other than the imperative. Counter-factual, if you need to be philosophical krypto-technical, Subjectsive is you are more of a classicist! Grice took a cavalier to the problem: Surely it wont do to say You couldnt have done that, since you were in Seattle, to someone who figuratively tells you hes spend the full summer cleaning the Aegean stables. This, to philosophers, is the centerpiece of the lectures. Grice takes good care of not, and, or, and concludes with the if of the title. For each, he finds a métier, alla Cook Wilson in Statement and Inference. And they all connect with rationality. So he is using material from his Oxford seminars on the principle of conversational helpfulness. Plus Cook Wilson makes more sense at Oxford than at Harvard! The last bit, citing Kripke and Dummett, is meant as jocular. What is important is the teleological approach to the operators, where a note should be made about dyadicity. In Prolegomena, when he introduces the topic, he omits not (about which he was almost obsessed!). He just gives an example for and (He went to bed and took off his dirty boots), one for or (the garden becomes Oxford and the kitchen becomes London, and the implicatum is in terms, oddly, of ignorance: My wife is either in town or country,making fun of Town and Country), and if. His favourite illustration for if is Cock Robin: If the Sparrow did not kill him, the Lark did! This is because Grice is serious about the erotetic, i.e. question/answer, format Cook Wilson gives to things, but he manages to bring Philonian and Megarian into the picture, just to impress! Most importantly, he introduces the square brackets! Hell use them again in Presupposition and Conversational Implicature and turns them into subscripts in Vacuous Namess. This is central. For he wants to impoverish the idea of the implicatum. The explicitum is minimal, and any divergence is syntactic-cum-pragmatic import. The scope devices are syntactic and eliminable, and as he knows: what the eye no longer sees, the heart no longer grieves for!  The modal implicatum. Since Grice uses indicative, for the title of his third James lecture (Indicative Conditionals) surely he implicates subjunctive  ‒ i.e. that someone might be thinking that he should give an account of indicative-cum-subjective. This relates to an example Grice gives in Causal theory, that he does not reproduce in Prolegomena. Grice states the philosophical mistake as follows. What is actual is not also possible. Grice seems to be suggesting that a subjective conditional would involve one or other of the modalities, he is not interested in exploring. On the other hand, Mackie has noted that Grices conversationalist hypothesis (Mackie quotes verbatim from Grices principle of conversational helpfulness) allows for an explanation of the Subjectsive if that does not involve Kripke-type paradoxes involving possible worlds, or other. In Causal Theory, Grice notes that the issue with which he has been mainly concerned may be thought rather a fine point, but it is certainly not an isolated one. There are several philosophical theses or dicta which would he thinks need to be examined in order to see whether or not they are sufficiently parallel to the thesis which Grice has been discussing to be amenable to treatment of the same general kind. An examples which occurs to me is the following. What is actual is not also possible. I must emphasise that I am not saying that this example is importantly similar to the thesis which I have been criticizing, only that, for all I know, it may be. To put the matter more generally, the position adopted by Grices objector seems to Grice to involve a type of manoeuvre which is characteristic of more than one contemporary mode of philosophizing. He is not condemning that kind of manoeuvre. He is merely suggesting that to embark on it without due caution is to risk collision with the facts. Before we rush ahead to exploit the linguistic nuances which we have detected, we should make sure that we are reasonably clear what sort of nuances they are. If was also of special interest to Grice for many other reasons. He defends a dispositional account of intending that in terms of ifs and cans. He considers akrasia conditionally. He explored the hypothetical-categorical distinction in the buletic mode. He was concerned with therefore as involved with the associated if of entailment. Refs.: “Implicatum” is introduced in Essay 2 in WoW – but there are scattered references elsewhere. He often uses the plural ‘implicata’ too, as in “Retrospective Epilogue,” The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC. An implicatum requires a complexum. Frege was the topic of the explorations by Dummett. A tutee of Grices once brought Dummetts Frege to a tutorial and told Grice that he intended to explore this. Have you read it? No I havent, Grice answered. And after a pause, he went on: And I hope I will not. Hardly promising, the tutee thought. Some authors, including Grice, but alas, not Frege, have noted some similarities between Grices notion of a conventional implicature and Freges schematic and genial rambles on colouring. Aber Farbung, as Frege would state! Grice was more interested in the idea of a Fregeian sense, but he felt that if he had to play with Freges aber he should! One of Grices metaphysical construction-routines, the Humeian projection, is aimed at the generation of concepts, in most cases the rational reconstruction of an intuitive concept displayed in ordinary discourse. We arrive at something like a Fregeian sense. Grice exclaimed, with an intonation of Eureka, almost. And then he went back to Frege. Grices German was good, so he could read Frege, in the vernacular. For fun, he read Frege to his children (Grices, not Freges): In einem obliquen Kontext, Frege says, Grice says, kann ja z. B. die Ersetzung eines „aber durch ein „und, die in einem direkten Kontext keinen Unterschied des Wahrheitswerts ergibt, einen solchen Unterschied bewirken. Ill make that easy for you, darlings: und is and, and aber is but. But surely, Papa, aber is not cognate with but! Its not. That is Anglo-Saxon, for you. But is strictly Anglo-Saxon short for by-out; we lost aber when we sailed the North Sea. Grice went on: Damit wird eine Abgrenzung von Sinn und Färbung (oder Konnotationen) eines Satzes fragwürdig. I. e. he is saying that She was poor but she was honest only conventionally implicates that there is a contrast between her poverty and her honesty. I guess he heard the ditty during the War? Grice ignored that remark, and went on: Appell und Kundgabe wären ferner von Sinn und Färbung genauer zu unterscheiden. Ich weiß so auf interessante Bedeutungs Komponenten hin, bemüht sich aber nicht, sie genauer zu differenzieren, da er letztlich nur betonen will, daß sie in der Sprache der Logik keine Rolle spielen. They play a role in the lingo, that is! What do? Stuff like but. But surely they are not rational conversational implicata!? No, dear, just conventional tricks you can ignore on a nice summer day! Grice however was never interested in what he dismissively labels the conventional implicatum. He identifies it because he felt he must! Surely, the way some Oxonian philosophers learn to use stuff like, on the one hand, and on the other, (or how Grice learned how to use men and de in Grecian), or so, or therefore, or but versus and, is just to allow that he would still use imply in such cases. But surely he wants conversational to stick with rationality: conversational maxim and converational implicatum only apply to things which can be justified transcendentally, and not idiosyncrasies of usage! Grice follows Church in noting that Russell misreads Frege as being guilty of ignoring the use-mention distinction, when he doesnt. One thing that Grice minimises is that Freges assertion sign is composite. Tha is why Baker prefers to use the dot “.” as the doxastic correlative for the buletic sign ! which is NOT composite. The sign „├‟ is composite. Frege explains his Urteilstrich, the vertical component of his sign ├ as conveying assertoric force. The principal role of the horizontal component as such is to prevent the appearance of assertoric force belonging to a token of what does not express a thought (e.g. the expression 22). ─p expresses a thought even if p does not.) cf. Hares four sub-atomic particles: phrastic (dictum), neustic (dictor), tropic, and clistic. Cf. Grice on the radix controversy: We do not want the “.” in p to become a vanishing sign. Grices Frege, Frege, Words, and Sentences, Frege, Farbung, aber. Frege was one of Grices obsessions. A Fregeian sense is an explicatum, or implicitum, a concession to get his principle of conversational helpfulness working in the generation of conversational implicata, that can only mean progress for philosophy! Fregeian senses are not to be multiplied beyond necessity. The employment of the routine of Humeian projection may be expected to deliver for us, as its result, a concept – the concept(ion) of value, say, in something like a Fregeian sense, rather than an object. There is also a strong affinity between Freges treatment of colouring (of the German particle aber, say) and Grices idea of a convetional implicatum (She was poor, but she was honest,/and her parents were the same,/till she met a city feller,/and she lost her honest Names, as the vulgar Great War ditty went). Grice does not seem interested in providing a philosophical exploration of conventional implicata, and there is a reason for this. Conventional implicata are not essentially connected, as conversational implicata are, with rationality. Conventional implicata cannot be calculable. They have less of a philosophical interest, too, in that they are not cancellable. Grice sees cancellability as a way to prove some (contemporary to him, if dated) ordinary-language philosophers who analyse an expression in terms of sense and entailment, where a cancellable conversational implicatum is all there is (to it).  He mentions Benjamin in Prolegomena, and is very careful in noting how Benjamin misuses a Fregeian sense. In his Causal theory, Grice lists another mistake: What is known to be the case is not believed to be the case. Grice gives pretty few example of a conventional implicatum: therefore, as in the utterance by Jill: Jack is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave. This is interesting because therefore compares to so which Strawson, in PGRICE, claims is the asserted counterpart to if. But Strawson is never associated with the type of linguistic botany that Grice is. Grice also mentions the idiom, on the one hand/on the other hand, in some detail in “Epilogue”: My aunt was a nurse in the Great War; my sister, on the other hand, lives on a peak at Darien. Grice thinks that Frege misuses the use-mention distinction but Russell corrects that. Grice bases this on Church. And of course he is obsessed with the assertion sign by Frege, which Grice thinks has one stroke tooo many. The main reference is give above for ‘complexum.’ Those without a philosophical background tend to ignore a joke by Grice. His echoing Kant in the James is a joke, in the sense that he is using Katns well-known to be pretty artificial quartet of ontological caegories to apply to a totally different phenomenon: the taxonomy of the maxims! In his earlier non-jocular attempts, he applied more philosophical concepts with a more serious rationale. His key concept, conversation as rational co-operation, underlies all his attempts. A pretty worked-out model is in terms then of this central, or overarching principle of conversational helpfulness (where conversation as cooperation need not be qualified as conversation as rational co-operation) and being structured by two contrasting sub-principles: the principle of conversational benevolence (which almost overlaps with the principle of conversational helpfulness) and the slightly more jocular principle of conversational self-love. There is something oxymoronic about self-love being conversational, and this is what leads to replace the two subprinciples by a principle of conversational helfpulness (as used in WoW:IV) simpliciter. His desideratum of conversational candour is key. The clash between the desideratum of conversational candour and the desideratum of conversational clarity (call them supermaxims) explains why I believe that p (less clear than p) shows the primacy of candour over clarity. The idea remains of an overarching principle and a set of more specific guidelines. Non-Oxonian philosophers would see Grices appeal to this or that guideline as ad hoc, but not his tutees! Grice finds inspiration in Joseph Butler’s sermon on benevolence and self-love, in his sermon 9, upon the love of our neighbour, preached on advent Sunday. And if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, Namesly, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, Romans xiii. 9. It is commonly observed, that there is a disposition in men to complain of the viciousness and corruption of the age in which they live, as greater than that of former ones: which is usually followed with this further observation, that mankind has been in that respect much the same in all times. Now, to determine whether this last be not contradicted by the accounts of history: thus much can scarce be doubted, that vice and folly takes different turns, and some particular kinds of it are more open and avowed in some ages than in others; and, I suppose, it may be spoken of as very much the distinction of the present, to profess a contracted spirit, and greater regards to self-interest, than appears to have been done formerly. Upon this account it seems worth while to inquire, whether private interest is likely to be promoted in proportion to the degree in which self-love engrosses us, and prevails over all other principles; "or whether the contracted affection may not possibly be so prevalent as to disappoint itself, and even contradict its own end, private good?" Repr. in revised form as WOW, I. Grice felt the need to go back to his explantion (cf. Fisher, Never contradict. Never explain) of the nuances about seem and cause (“Causal theory”.). Grice uses ‘My wife is in the kitchen or the bedroom,’ by Smith, as relying on a requirement of discourse. But there must be more to it. Variations on a theme by Grice. Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. Variations on a theme by Grice. I wish to represent a certain subclass of non-conventional implicaturcs, which I shall call conversational implicaturcs, as being essentially connected with certain general features of discourse; so my next step is to try to say what these features are. The following may provide a first approximation to a general principle. Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at least, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purposes, or at least a mutually accepted direction. This purpose or direction may be fixed from the start (e.g., by an initial proposal of a question for discussion), or it may evolve during the exchange; it may be fairly definite, or it may be so indefinite as to leave very considerable latitude to the participants, as in a casual conversation. But at each stage, some possible conversational moves would be excluded as conversationally unsuitable. We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected ceteris paribus to observe, viz.: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. One might label this the co-operative principle. We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected ceteris paribus to observe, viz.:  Make your contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. One might label this the Cooperative Principle. Strictly, the principle itself is not co-operative: conversants are. Less literary variant: Make your move such as is required by the accepted goal of the conversation in which you are engaged. But why logic and conversation? Logica had been part of the trivium for ages ‒ Although they called it dialectica, then. Grice on the seven liberal arts. Moved by Strawsons treatment of the formal devices in “Introduction to logical theory” (henceforth, “Logical theory”), Grice targets these, in their ordinary-discourse counterparts. Strawson indeed characterizes Grice as his logic tutor – Strawson was following a PPE., and his approach to logic is practical. His philosophy tutor was Mabbott. For Grice, with a M. A. Lit. Hum. the situation is different. Grice knows that the Categoriae and De Int. of his beloved Aristotle are part of the Logical Organon which had been so influential in the history of philosophy. Grice attempts to reconcile Strawsons observations with the idea that the formal devices reproduce some sort of explicatum, or explicitum, as identified by Whitehead and Russell in Principia Mathematica. In the proceedings, Grice has to rely on some general features of discourse, or conversation as a rational co-operation. The alleged divergence between the ordinary-language operators and their formal counterparts is explained in terms of the conversational implicata, then. I.e. the content of the psychological attitude that the addressee A has to ascribe to the utterer U to account for any divergence between the formal device and its alleged ordinary-language counterpart, while still assuming that U is engaged in a co-operative transaction. The utterer and his addressee are seen as caring for the mutual goals of conversation  ‒ the exchange of information and the institution of decisions  ‒ and judging that conversation will only be profitable (and thus reasonable and rational) if conducted under some form of principle of conversational helpfulness. The observation of a principle of  conversational helpfulness is reasonable (rational) along the following lines: anyone who cares about the goals that are central to conversation/communication (such as giving and receiving information, influencing and being influenced by others) must be expected to have an interest, given suitable circumstances, in participating in a conversation that will be profitable ONLY on the assumption that it is conducted in general accordance with a principle of conversational helpfulness. In titling his seminar Logic and conversation, Grice is thinking Strawson. After all, in the seminal “Logical theory,” that every Oxonian student was reading, Strawson had the cheek to admit that he never ceased to learn logic from his tutor, Grice. Yet he elaborates a totally anti Griceian view of things. To be fair to Strawson, the only segment where he acknwoledges Grices difference of opinion is a brief footnote, concerning the strength or lack thereof, of this or that quantified utterance. Strawson uses an adjective that Grice will seldom do, pragmatic. On top, Strawson attributes the adjective to rule. For Grice, in Strawsons wording, there is this or that pragmatic rule to the effect that one should make a stronger rather than a weaker conversational move. Strawsons Introduction was published before Grice aired his views for the Aristotelian Society. In this seminar then Grice takes the opportunity to correct a few misunderstandings. Important in that it is Grices occasion to introduce the principle of conversational helpfulness as generating implicata under the assumption of rationality. The lecture makes it obvious that Grices interest is methodological, and not philological. He is not interest in conversation per se, but only as the source for his principle of conversational helpfulness and the notion of the conversational implicatum, which springs from the distinction between what an utterer implies and what his expression does, a distinction apparently denied by Witters and all too frequently ignored by Austin. Logic and conversation, an Oxford seminar, implicatum, principle of conversational helpfulness, eywords: conversational implicature, conversational implicatum. Conversational Implicature Grices main invention, one which trades on the distinction between what an utterer implies and what his expression does. A distinction apparently denied by Witters, and all too frequently ignored by, of all people, Austin. Grice is implicating that Austins sympathies were for the Subjectsification of Linguistic Nature. Grice remains an obdurate individualist, and never loses sight of the distinction that gives rise to the conversational implicatum, which can very well be hyper-contextualised, idiosyncratic, and perfectly particularized. His gives an Oxonian example. I can very well mean that my tutee is to bring me a philosophical essay next week by uttering It is raining.Grice notes that since the object of the present exercise, is to provide a bit of theory which will explain, for a certain family of cases, why is it that a particular implicature is present, I would suggest that the final test of the adequacy and utility of this model should be: can it be used to construct an explanation of the presence of such an implicature, and is it more comprehensive and more economical than any rival? is the no doubt pre-theoretical explanation which one would be prompted to give of such an implicature consistent with, or better still a favourable pointer towards the requirements involved in the model? cf. Sidonius: Far otherwise: whoever disputes with you will find those protagonists of heresy, the Stoics, Cynics, and Peripatetics, shattered with their own arms and their own engines; for their heathen followers, if they resist the doctrine and spirit of Christianity, will, under your teaching, be caught in their own familiar entanglements, and fall headlong into their own toils; the barbed syllogism of your arguments will hook the glib tongues of the casuists, and it is you who will tie up their slippery questions in categorical clews, after the manner of a clever physician, who, when compelled by reasoned thought, prepares antidotes for poison even from a serpent.qvin potivs experietvr qvisqve conflixerit stoicos cynicos peripateticos hæresiarchas propriis armis propriis qvoqve concvti machiNamesntis nam sectatores eorum Christiano dogmati ac sensvi si repvgnaverint mox te magistro ligati vernaculis implicaturis in retia sua præcipites implagabvntur syllogismis tuæ propositionis vncatis volvbilem tergiversantvm lingvam inhamantibvs dum spiris categoricis lubricas qvæstiones tv potivs innodas acrivm more medicorvm qui remedivm contra venena cum ratio compellit et de serpente conficivnt. If he lectured on Logic and Conversation on implicature, Grice must have thought that Strawsons area was central. Yet, as he had done in Causal theory and as he will at Harvard, Grice kept collecting philosophers mistakes. So its best to see Grice as a methodologist, and as using logic and conversation as an illustration of his favourite manoeuvre, indeed, central philosophical manoeuver that gave him a place in the history of philosophy. Restricting this manoeuvre to just an area minimises it. On the other hand, there has to be a balance: surely logic and conversation is a topic of intrinsic interest, and we cannot expect all philosophers – unless they are Griceians – to keep a broad unitarian view of philosophy as  a virtuous whole. Philosophy, like virtue, is entire. Destructive implicature to it: Mr. Puddle is our man in æsthetics implicates that he is not good at it. What is important to Grice is that the mistakes of these philosophers (notably Strawson!) arise from some linguistic phenomena, or, since we must use singular expressions this or that linguistic phenomenon. Or as Grice puts it, it is this or that linguistic phenomenon which provides the material for the philosopher to make his mistake! So, to solve it, his theory of conversation as rational co-operation is posited – technically, as a way to explain (never merely describe, which Grice found boring ‒ if English, cf. never explain, never apologise ‒ Jacky Fisher: Never contradict. Never explain.) these phenomena – his principle of conversational helpfulness and the idea of a conversational implicatum. The latter is based not so much on rationality per se, but on the implicit-explicit distinction that he constantly plays with, since his earlier semiotic-oriented explorations of Peirce. But back to this or that linguistic phenomenon, while he would make fun of Searle for providing this or that linguistic phenomenon that no philosopher would ever feel excited about, Grice himself was a bit of a master in illustrating this a philosophical point with this or that linguistic phenomenon that would not be necessarily connected with philosophy. Grice rarely quotes authors, but surely the section in “Causal theory,” where he lists seven philosophical theses (which are ripe for an implicatum treatment) would be familiar enough for anybody to be able to drop a names to attach to each. At Harvard, almost every example Grice gives of this or that linguistic phenomenon is UN-authored (and sometimes he expands on his own view of them, just to amuse his audience – and show how committed to this or that thesis he was), but some are not unauthored. And they all belong to the linguistic turn: In his three groups of examples, Grice quotes from Ryle (who thinks he knows about ordinary language), Witters, Austin (he quotes him in great detail, from Pretending, Plea of excuses, and No modification without aberration,), Strawson (in “Logical theory” and on Truth for Analysis), Hart (as I have heard him expand on this), Grice, Searle, and Benjamin. Grice implicates Hare on ‘good,’ etc. When we mention the explicit/implicit distinction as source for the implicatum, we are referring to Grices own wording in Retrospective epilogue where he mentions an utterer as conveying in some explicit fashion this or that, as opposed to a gentler, more (midland or southern) English, way, via implicature, or implIciture, if you mustnt. Cf. Fowler: As a southern Englishman, Ive stopped trying teaching a northern Englishman the distinction between ought and shall. He seems to get it always wrong. It may be worth exploring how this connects with rationality. His point would be that that an assumption that the rational principle of conversational helpfulness is in order allows P-1 not just to convey in a direct explicit fashion that p, but in an implicit fashion that q, where q is the implicatum. The principle of conversational helpfulness as generator of this or that implicata, to use Grices word (generate). Surely, He took off his boots and went to bed; I wont say in which order sounds hardly in the vein of conversational helpfulness – but provided Grice does not see it as logically incoherent, it is still a rational (if not reasonable) thing to say. The point may be difficult to discern, but you never know. The utterer may be conveying, Viva Boole. Grices point about rationality is mentioned in his later Prolegomena, on at least two occasions. Rational behaviour is the phrase he uses (as applied first to communication and then to discourse) and in stark opposition with a convention-based approach he rightly associates with Austin. Grice is here less interested here as he will be on rationality, but coooperation as such. Helpfulness as a reasonable expecation (normative?), a mutual one between decent chaps, as he puts it. His charming decent chap is so Oxonian. His tutee would expect no less ‒ and indeed no more! A rather obscure exploration on the connection of semiotics and philosophical psychology. Grice is aware that there is an allegation in the air about a possible vicious circle in trying to define category of expression in terms of a category of representation. He does not provide a solution to the problem which hell take up in his Method in philosophical psychology, in his role of President of the APA. It is the implicatum behind the lecture that matters, since Grice will go back to it, notably in the Retrospective Epilogue. For Grice, its all rational enough. Theres a P, in a situation, say of danger – a bull ‒. He perceives the bull. The bulls attack causes this perception. Bull! the P₁ G1 screams, and causes in P₂ G2 a rearguard movement. So where is the circularity? Some pedants would have it that Bull cannot be understood in a belief about a bull which is about a bull. Not Grice. It is nice that he brought back implicature, which had become obliterated in the lectures, back to title position! But it is also noteworthy, that these are not explicitly rationalist models for implicature. He had played with a model, and an explanatory one at that, for implicature, in his Oxford seminar, in terms of a principle of conversational helpfulness, a desideratum of conversational clarity, a desideratum of conversational candour, and two sub-principles: a principle of conversational benevolence, and a principle of conversational self-interest! Surely Harvard could be spared of the details! Implicature. Grice disliked a presupposition. BANC also contains a folder for Odd ends: Urbana and non-Urbana. Grice continues with the elaboration of a formal calculus. He originally baptised it System Q in honour of Quine. At a later stage, Myro will re-Names it System G, in a special version, System GHP, a highly powerful/hopefully plausible version of System G, in gratitude to Grice. Odd Ends: Urbana and Not Urbana, Odds and ends: Urbana and not Urbana, or not-Urbana, or Odds and ends: Urbana and non Urbana, or Oddents, urbane and not urbane, semantics, Urbana lectures. The Urbana lectures are on language and reality. Grice keeps revising them, as these items show. Language and reality, The University of Illinois at Urbana, The Urbana Lectures, Language and reference, language and reality, The Urbana lectures, University of Illinois at Urbana, language, reference, reality. Grice favours a transcendental approach to communication. A beliefs by a communicator worth communicating has to be true. An order by a communicator worth communicating has to be satisfactory. The fourth lecture is the one Grice dates in WOW . Smith has not ceased from beating his wife, presupposition and conversational implicature, in Radical pragmatics, ed. by R. Cole, repr. in a revised form in Grice, WOW, II, Explorations in semantics and metaphysics, essay, presupposition and implicature, presupposition, conversational implicature, implicature, Strawson. Grice: The loyalty examiner will not summon you, do not worry. The cancellation by Grice could be pretty subtle. Well, the loyalty examiner will not be summoning you at any rate. Grice goes back to the issue of negation and not. If, Grice notes, is is a matter of dispute whether the government has a very undercover person who interrogates those whose loyalty is suspect and who, if he existed, could be legitimately referred to as the loyalty examiner; and if, further, I am known to be very sceptical about the existence of such a person, I could perfectly well say to a plainly loyal person, Well, the loyalty examiner will not be summoning you at any rate, without, Grice  would think, being taken to imply that such a person exists. Further, if the utterer U is well known to disbelieve in the existence of such a person, though others are inclined to believe in him, when U finds a man who is apprised of Us position, but who is worried in case he is summoned, U may try to reassure him by uttering, The loyalty examiner will not summon you, do not worry. Then it would be clear that U uttered this because U is sure there is no such person. The lecture was variously reprinted, but the Urbana should remain the preferred citation. There are divergences in the various drafts, though. The original source of this exploration was a seminar. Grice is interested in re-conceptualising Strawsons manoeuvre regarding presupposition as involving what Grice disregards as a metaphysical concoction: the truth-value gap. In Grices view, based on a principle of conversational tailoring that falls under his principle of conversational helpfulness  ‒ indeed under the desideratum of conversational clarity (be perspicuous [sic]). The king of France is bald entails there is a king of France; while The king of France aint bald merely implicates it. Grice much preferred Collingwoods to Strawsons presuppositions! Grice thought, and rightly, too, that if his notion of the conversational implicatum was to gain Oxonian currency, it should supersede Strawsons idea of the præ-suppositum.  Strawson, in his attack to Russell, had been playing with Quines idea of a truth-value gap. Grice shows that neither the metaphysical concoction of a truth-value gap nor the philosophical tool of the præ-suppositum is needed. The king of France is bald entails that there is a king of France. It is part of what U is logically committed to by what he explicitly conveys. By uttering, The king of France is not bald on the other hand, U merely implicitly conveys or implicates that there is a king of France. A perfectly adequate, or impeccable, as Grice prefers, cancellation, abiding with the principle of conversational helpfulness is in the offing. The king of France ain’t bald. What made you think he is? For starters, he ain’t real! Grice credits Sluga for having pointed out to him the way to deal with the definite descriptor or definite article or the iota quantifier the formally. One thing Russell discovered is that the variable denoting function is to be deduced from the variable propositional function, and is not to be taken as an indefinable. Russell tries to do without the iota i as an indefinable, but fails. The success by Russell later, in On denoting, is the source of all his subsequent progress. The iota quantifier consists of an inverted iota to be read the individuum x, as in (℩x).F(x). Grice opts for the Whiteheadian-Russellian standard rendition, in terms of the iota operator. Grices take on Strawson is a strong one. The king of France is bald; entails there is a king of France, and what the utterer explicitly conveys is doxastically unsatisfactory. The king of France aint bald does not. By uttering The king of France aint bald U only implicates that there is a king of France, and what he explicitly conveys is doxastically satisfactory. Grice knew he was not exactly robbing Peter to pay Paul, or did he? It is worth placing the lecture in context. Soon after delivering in the New World his exploration on the implicatum, Grice has no better idea than to promote Strawsons philosophy in the New World. Strawson will later reflect on the colder shores of the Old World, so we know what Grice had in mind! Strawsons main claim to fame in the New World (and at least Oxford in the Old World) was his On referring, where he had had the cheek to say that by uttering, The king of France is not bald, the utterer implies that there is a king of France (if not that, as Grice has it, that what U explicitly conveys is doxastically satisfactory. Strawson later changed that to the utterer presupposes that there is a king of France. So Grice knows what and who he was dealing with. Grice and Strawson had entertained Quine at Oxford, and Strawson was particularly keen on that turn of phrase he learned from Quine, the truth-value gap. Grice, rather, found it pretty repulsive: Tertium exclusum! So, Grice goes on to argue that by uttering The king of France is bald, one entailment of what U explicitly conveys is indeed There is a king of France. However, in its negative co-relate, things change. By uttering The king of France aint bald, the utterer merely implicitly conveys or implicates (in a pretty cancellable format) that there is a king of France. The king of France aint bald: theres no king of France! The loyalty examiner is like the King of France, in ways! The piece is crucial for Grices re-introduction of the square-bracket device: [The king of France] is bald; [The king of France] aint bald. Whatever falls within the scope of the square brackets is to be read as having attained common-ground status and therefore, out of the question, to use Collingwoods jargon! Grice was very familiar with Collingwood on presupposition, meant as an attack on Ayer. Collingwoods reflections on presuppositions being either relative or absolute may well lie behind Grices metaphysical construction of absolute value! The earliest exploration by Grice on this is his infamous, Smith has not ceased from beating his wife, discussed by Ewing in Meaninglessness for Mind. Grice goes back to the example in the excursus on implying that in Causal Theory, and it is best to revisit this source. Note that in the reprint in WOW Grice does NOT go, one example of presupposition, which eventually is a type of conversational implicature. Grices antipathy to Strawsons presupposition is metaphysical: he dislikes the idea of a satisfactory-value-gap, as he notes in the second paragraph to Logic and conversation. And his antipathy crossed the buletic-doxastic divide! Using φ to represent a sentence in either mode, he stipulate that ~φ is satisfactory just in case ⌈φ⌉ is unsatisfactory. A crunch, as he puts it, becomes obvious:  ~ ⊢The king of France is bald may perhaps be treated as equivalent to ⊢~(The king of France is bald). But what about ~!Arrest the intruder? What do we say in cases like, perhaps, Let it be that I now put my hand on my head or Let it be that my bicycle faces north, in which (at least on occasion) it seems to be that neither !p nor !~p is either satisfactory or unsatisfactory? If !p is neither satisfactory nor unsatisfactory (if that make sense, which doesnt to me), does the philosopher assign a third buletically satisfactory value (0.5) to !p (buletically neuter, or indifferent). Or does the philosopher say that we have a buletically satisfactory value gap, as Strawson, following Quine, might prefer? This may require careful consideration; but I cannot see that the problem proves insoluble, any more than the analogous problem connected with Strawsons doxastic presupposition is insoluble. The difficulty is not so much to find a solution as to select the best solution from those which present themselves. The main reference is Essay 2 in WoW, but there are scattered references elsewhere. Refs.: The main sources are the two sets of ‘logic and conversation,’ in BANC, but there are scattered essays on ‘implicature’ simpliciter, too --  “Presupposition and conversational implicature,” c. 2-f. 25; and “Convesational implicature,” c. 4-f. 9, “Happiness, discipline, and implicatures,” c. 7-f. 6; “Presupposition and implicature,” c. 9-f. 3, The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

conversational manual: of conversational rational etiquette -- conversational iimmanuel, cnversational manual. Before playing with ‘immanuel,’ Grice does use ‘manual’ more technically. A know-how. “Surely, I can have a manual, but don’t know how to play bridge.” “That’s not how I’m using ‘manual.’” It should be pointed out that it’s the visual thing that influenced. When people (especially non-philosophers) saw the list of maxims, they thought: “Washington!” “A manual!”. In the Oxford seminrs, Grice was never so ‘additive.’ His desideratum of conversational clarity, his desideratum of conversational candour, his principle of conversational self-love and his principle of conversational benevolence, plus his principle of conversational helpfulness, were meant as ‘philosophical’ leads to explain this or that philosophical mistake. The seminars were given for philosophy tutees. And Grice is playing on the ‘manuals of etiquette’ – conversational etiquette. If you do not BELONG to this targeted audience, it is likely that you’ll misconstrue Grice’s point, and you will! Especially R. T. L.!The Gentlemen's Book of Etiquette and Manual of Politeness Being a Complete Guide for a Gentleman's Conduct in All His Relations Towards Society by Cecil B. Hartley. Wit and vivacity are two highly important ingredients in the conversation of a man in polite society, yet a straining for effect, or forced wit, is in excessively bad taste. There is no one more insupportable in society than the everlasting talkers who scatter puns, witticisms, and jokes with so profuse a hand that they become as tiresome as a comic newspaper, and whose loud laugh at their own wit drowns other voices which might speak matter more interesting. The really witty man does not shower forth his wit so indiscriminately; his charm consists in wielding his powerful weapon delicately and easily, and making each highly polished witticism come in the right place and moment to be effectual. While real wit is a most delightful gift, and its use a most charming accomplishment, it is, like many other bright weapons, dangerous to use too often. You may wound where you meant only to amuse, and remarks which you mean only in for general applications, may be construed into personal affronts, so, if you have the gift, use it wisely, and not too freely. The most important requisite for a good conversational power is education, and, by this is meant, not merely the matter you may store in your memory from observation or books, though this is of vast importance, but it also includes the developing of the mental powers, and, above all, the comprehension. An English writer says, “A man should be able, in order to enter into conversation, to catch rapidly the meaning of anything that is advanced; for instance, though you know nothing of science, you should not be obliged to stare and be silent, when a man who does understand it is explaining a new discovery or a new theory; though you have not read a word of Blackstone, your comprehensive powers should be sufficiently acute to enable you to take in the statement that may be made of a recent cause; though you may not have read some particular book, you should be capable of appreciating the criticism which you hear of it. Without such power—simple enough, and easily attained by attention and practice, yet too seldom met with in general society—a conversation which departs from the most ordinary topics cannot be maintained without the risk of lapsing into a lecture; with such power, society becomes instructive as well as amusing, and you have no remorse at an evening’s end at having wasted three or four hours in profitless banter, or simpering platitudes. This facility of comprehension often startles us in some women, whose education we know to have been poor, and whose reading is limited. If they did not rapidly receive your ideas, they could not, therefore, be fit companions for intellectual men, and it is, perhaps, their consciousness of a deficiency which leads them to pay the more attention to what you say. It is this which makes married women so much more agreeable to men of thought than young ladies, as a rule, can be, for they are accustomed to the society of a husband, and the effort to be a companion to his mind has engrafted the habit of attention and ready reply.”

conversational maxim. The idea of a maxim implies freewill and freedom in general. A beautiful thing about Grice’s conversational maxims is that surely they do not ‘need to be necessarily’ independent, as Strawson and Wiggins emphatically put it (p.520). The important thing is other. A conversational maxim is UNIVERSALISABLE (v. universalierung) into a ‘manual,’ the “Immanuel,” strictly, the “Conversational Immanuel.” Grice is making fun of those ‘conversational manuals’ for the learning of some European language in the Grand Tour (as in “Learn Swiss in five easy lessons”). Grice is echoing Kant. Maximen (subjektive Grundsätze): selbstgesetzte Handlungsregeln, die ein Wollen ausdrücken, vs. Imperative (objektive Grundsätze): durch praktische Vernunft bestimmt; Ratschläge, moralisch relevante Grundsätze. („das Gesetz aber ist das objektive Prinzip, gültig für jedes vernünftige Wesen, und der Grundsatz, nach dem es handeln soll, d. i. ein Imperativ.“) das Problem ist jedoch die Subjektivität der Maxime. When considering Grice’s concept of a ‘conversational maxim,’ one has to be careful. First, he hesitated as to the choice of the label. He used ‘objective’ and ‘desideratum’ before. And while few cite this, in WoW:PandCI he adds one – leading the number of maxims to ten, what he called the ‘conversational catalogue.’ So when exploring the maxims, it is not necessary to see their dependence on the four functions that Kant tabulated: quantitas, qualitas, relatio, and modus, or quantity, quality, relation, and mode (Grice follows Meiklejohn’s translation), but in terms of their own formulation, one by one. Grice formulates the overarching principle: “We might then formulate a rough general principle which participants will be expected (ceteris paribus) to observe, namely: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. One might label this the COOPEHATIVE PIUNCIPLE.”He then goes on to introduce the concept of a ‘conversational maxim.’“On the assumption that some such general principle as this is acceptable, one may perhaps distinguish four categories under one or another of which will fall certain more specific MAXIMS maxims and submaxims, the following of which will, in general, yield results in accordance with the Cooperative Principle.” Note that in his comparative “more specific maxims,” he is implicating that, in terms of the force, the principle is a MAXIM. Had he not wanted this implicature, he could have expressed it as: “On the assumption that some such general principle as this is acceptable, one may perhaps distinguish four categories under one or another of which will fall certain MAXIMS.” He is comparing the principle with the maxims in terms of ‘specificity.’ I.e. the principle is the ‘summun genus,’ as it were, the category is the ‘inferior genus,’ and the maxim is the ‘species infima.’He is having in mind something like arbor porphyriana. For why otherwise care to distinguish in the introductory passage, between ‘maxims and submaxims.’ This use of ‘submaxim’ is very interesting. Because it is unique. He would rather call the four maxims as SUPRA-maxims, supermaxim, or supramaxim. And leaving ‘maxim’ for what here he is calling the submaxim.Note that if one challenges the ‘species infima,’ one may proceed to distinguish this or that sub-sub-maxim falling under the maxim. Take “Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.” Since this, as he grants, applies mainly to informative cases, one may consider that it is actually a subsubmaxim. The submaxim would be: “Do not say that for which you are not entitled” (alla Nowell-Smith). And then provide one subsubmaxim for the desideratum: “Do not give an order which you are not entitled to give” or “Do not order that for you lack adequate authority,” and the other subsubmaxim for the creditum: “Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.”Grice: “Echoing Kant, I call these categories Quantity, Quality, Relation, and Manner.” Or Mode. “Manner” may be Ross’s translation of Aristotle’s ‘mode.’ Consider the exploration of Aristotle on ‘modus’ in Categoriae. It is such a mixed bag that surely ‘manner’ is not inappropriate!“The category of QUANTITY” – i. e. either the conversational category of quantity, or as one might prefer, the category of conversational quantity – “relates to the quantity of information to be provided,”So it’s not just ANY QUANTUM, as Aristotle or Kant, or Ariskant have it – just QUANTITY OF INFORMATION, whatever ‘information’ is, and how the quantity of information is to be assessed. E g. Grice surely shed doubts re: the pillar box seems red and the pillar box is red. He had till now used ‘strength,’ even ‘logical strength,’ in terms of entailment – and here, neither the phenomenalist nor the physicalist utterance entail the other.“and under it fall the following maxims:”That is, he goes straight to the ‘conversational maxim.’ He will provide supermaxim for the other three conversational categories.Why is the category of conversational quantity lacking a supermaxim?The reason is that it would seem redundant and verbose: ‘be appropriately informative.’ By having TWO maxims, he is playing with a weighing in, or balance between one maxim and the other. Cf.To say the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth.No more no less.One maximm states the ‘at most,’ the other maxim states the ‘at least.’One maxim states the ‘maxi,’ the other maxim states the ‘min.’ Together they state the ‘maximin.’First, “Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).”It’s the contribution which is informative, not the utterer. Cf. “Be as informative as is required.” Grice implicates that if you make your contribution as informative as is required YOU are being as informative as is required. But there is a category-shift here. Grice means, ‘required BY the goal of the exchange). e.g.How are youFine thanks – the ‘and you’ depends on whether you are willing to ‘keep the conversation going’ or your general mood. Second, “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.”“ (The second maxim is disputable;”He goes on to give a different reason. But the primary reason is that “Do not make your contribution more informative than is required” is ENTAILED by “Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)” – vide R. M. Hare on “Imperative inferences” IN a diagram:Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange)Therefore, do not make your contribution more informative than is required (by the current purposes of the exchange).Grice gives another reason (he will give yet a further one) why the maxim is ‘disputable.’“it might be said that to be overinformative is not a transgression of the CP but merely a waste of time.”For both conversationalists, who are thereby abiding by Ferraro’s law of the least conversational effort.”“A waste of time” relates to Grice’s previous elaborations on ‘undue effort’ and ‘unnecessary trouble.’He is proposing a conversational maximin.When he formulates his principle of economy of rational effort, it is a waste of ‘time and energy.’Here it is just ‘time.’ “Energy” is a more generic concept.“However, it might be answered that such overinformativeness may be confusing in that it is liable to raise side issues;”Methinks the lady doth protest too much.His example, “He was in a blacked out city.”It does not seem to relate to the pillar boxA: What color is the pillar boxB: It seems red.Such a ‘confusion’ and ‘side issue,’ if so designed, is part of the implicatum.“and there may also be an indirect effect, in that the hearers (or addressee) may be misled as a result of thinking that there is some particular POINT in the provision of the excess of information.”Cf. Peter Winch on “H. P. Grice’s Conversational Point.”More boringly, it is part of the utterer’s INTENTION to provide an excess of information.”This may be counterproductive, or not.“Meet Mr. Puddle”“Meet Mr. Puddle, our man in nineteenth-century continental philosophy.”The introducer point: to keep the conversation going.Effect on Grice: Mr. Puddle is hopeless at nineteenth-century continental philosophy (OR HE IS BEING UNDERDESCRIBED). One has to think of philosophically relevant examples here, which is all that Grice cares for. Malcolm says, “Moore knows it; because he’s seen it!” – Malcolm implicates that Grice will not take Malcolm’s word. So Malcom needs to provide the excess of information, and add, to his use of ‘know,’ which Malcolm claims Moore does not know how to use, the ‘reason’ – If knowledge is justified true belief, Malcolm is conveying explicitly that Moore knows and ONE OF THE CONDITIONS for it. Cf.I didn’t know you were pregnant.You still do not. (Here the cancellation is to the third clause). Grice: “However this may be, there is perhaps a different [second] reason for doubt about the admission of this second maxim, viz., that its effect will be secured by a later maxim, which concems relevance.)”He could be a lecturer. His use of ‘later’ entails he knows in advance what he is going to say. Cf. Foucault:“there is another reason to doubt. The effect is secured by a maxim concerning relevance.”No “later” about it!Grice:“Under the category of QUALITY falls a supermaxim” – he forgets to add, as per obvious, “The category of quality relates to the QUALITY of information.” In this way, there is some reference to Aristotle’s summumm genus. PROPOSITIO DEDICATIVA, PROPOSITIO ABDICATIVA, PROPOSITIO INFINITA. Cf. Apuleius and Boethius on QUALITAS of propositio. Dedicatio takes priority over abdicatio. So one expects one’s co-conversationalist to say that something IS the case. Note too, that, if he used “more specific maxims and submaxims,” he means “more specific supermaxims and maxims” – He is following Porophyry in being confusing! Cf. supramaxim. Grice “-'Try to make your contribution one that is true' –“This surely requires generality – and Grice spent the next two decades about it. He introduced the predicate ‘acceptability.’ “Try to make your contribution one that is acceptable”“True for your statements; good for your desiderative-mode utterances.”“and two more specific maxims:”“1. Do not say what you believe to be false.”There is logic here. It is easy to TRY to make your contribution one that is true.” And it is easy NOT to say what you believe to be false. Grice is forbidding Kant to have a maxim on us: “Be truthful!” “Say the true!” “MAKE – don’t just TRY – to make your contribution one that is true.”“I was only trying.”Cf. Moses, “Try not to kill” “Thou shalt trye not to kylle.”Grice:“2. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.”This is involved with truth. In “Truth and other enigmas,” Dummett claims that truth is, er, an enigma. For some philosophers, all you can guarantee is that you have evidence. Lacking evidence for what?The qualification, “adequate,” turns the maxim slightly otiose. Do not say that for you lack evidence which would make your contribution not a true one.However, Grice is thinking Gettier. And Gettier allows that one CAN have ADEQUATE EVIDENCE, and p NOT be true.If we are talking ‘acceptability’ it’s more ‘ground’ or ‘reason’, rather than ‘evidential justification.’ Grice is especially obsessed with this, in his explorations on ‘intending,’ where ‘acceptance’ is deemed even in the lack of ‘evidential justification,’ and leaving him wondering what he means by ‘non-evidential justification.’“Under the category of RELATION I place a single maxim, viz., 'Be relevant.'”The category comes from Aristotle, ‘pros it.’ And ‘re-‘ in relation is cognate with ‘re-‘ in ‘relevant.’RELATION refers to ‘refer,’ Roman ‘referre.’ But in Anglo-Norman, you do have ‘relate’ qua verb. To ‘refer’ or ‘re-late,’ is to bring y back to x. As Russell well knows in his fight with Bradley’s theory of ‘relation,’ a relation involves x and y. A relation is a two-place predicate. What about X = xIs identity a relation, in the case of x = x?Can a thing relate to itself?In cases where we introduce two variables. The maxim states that one brings y back to x.“Mrs. Smith is an old windbag.”“The weather has been delightful for this time of year, hasn’t it.”If INTENDED to mean, “You ARE ignorant!,” then the conversationalist IS bring back “totally otiose remark about the weather” to the previous insulting comment.To utter an utterly irrelevant second move you have to be Andre Breton.“Though the maxim itself is terse, its formulation conceals a number of problems that exercise me a good deal: questions about what different kinds and focuses of relevance there may be, how these shift in the course of a talk exchange, how to allow for the fact that subjects of conversation are legitimately changed, and so on. I find the treatment of such questions exceedingly difficult, and I hope to revert to them in a later work.”He is having in mind Nowell-Smith, who had ‘be relevant’ as the most important of the rules of conversational etiquette, or how etiquette becomes logical. But Nowell-Smith felt overwhelmed by Grice and left for the north, to settle in the very fashionable Kent. Grice is also having in mind Urmson’s appositeness (Criteria of intensionality). “Why did you title your painting “Maga’s Daughter”? She’s your wife!” – and Grice is also having in mind P. F. Strawson and what Strawson has as the principle of relevance vis-à-vis the principles of presumption of ignorance and knowledge.So it was in the Oxonian air.“Finally, under the category of MODE, which I understand as relating not (like the previous categories) to what is said [THE CONTENT, THE EXPLICITUM, THE COMMUNICATUM, THE EXPLICATUM] but, rather, to HOW what is said is to be said,”Grice says that ‘meaning’ is diaphanous. An utterer means that p reduces to what an utterer means by x. This diaphanousness ‘meaning’ shares with ‘seeing.’ “To expand on the experience of seeing is just to expand on what is seen.’He is having the form-content distinction.If that is a distinction. This multi-layered dialectic displays the true nature of the speculative form/content distinction: all content is form and all form is content, not in a uniform way, but through being always more or less relatively indifferent or posited.    The Role of the Form/Content Distinction in Hegel's Science of ...deontologistics.files.wordpress.com › 2012/01 › formc... PDF Feedback About Featured Snippets Web results    The Form-Content Distinction in Moral Development Researchwww.karger.com › Article › PDF The form-content distinction is a potentially useful conceptual device for understanding certain characteristics of moral development. In the most general sense it ... by CG Levine - ‎1979 - ‎Cited by 25 - ‎Related articles    The Form-Content Distinction in Moral Development Research ...www.karger.com › Article › Abstract Dec 23, 2009 - The Form-Content Distinction in Moral Development Research. Levine C.G.. Author affiliations. University of Western Ontario, London, Ont. by CG Levine - ‎1979 - ‎Cited by 25 - ‎Related articles    Preschool children's mastery of the form/content distinction in ...www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov › pubmed Preschool children's mastery of the form/content distinction in communicative tasks. Hedelin L(1), Hjelmquist E. Author information: (1)Department of Psychology, ... by L Hedelin - ‎1998 - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles    Form and Content: An Introduction to Formal Logic - Digital ...digitalcommons.conncoll.edu › cgi › viewcontentPDF terminology has to do with anything. In this context, 'material' means having to do with content. This is our old friend, the form/content distinction again. Consider. by DD Turner - ‎2020    Simmel's Dialectic of Form and Content in Recent Work in ...www.tandfonline.com › doi › full May 1, 2019 - This suggests that for Simmel, the form/content distinction was not a dualism; instead, it was a duality.11 Ronald L. Breiger, “The Duality of ...    Are these distinctions between “form” and “content” intentionally ...www.reddit.com › askphilosophy › comments › are_th... The form/content distinction also doesn't quite fit the distinction between form and matter (say, in Aristotle), although Hegel develops the distinction between form ...    Preschool Children's Mastery of the Form/Content Distinction ...link.springer.com › article Preschoolers' mastery of the form/content distinction in language and communication, along its contingency on the characteristics of p. by L Hedelin - ‎1998 - ‎Cited by 10 - ‎Related articles    Verbal Art: A Philosophy of Literature and Literary Experiencebooks.google.com › books Even if form and content were in fact inseparable in the sense indicated, that would not make the form/content distinction unjustified. Form and matter are clearly ... Anders Pettersson - 2001 - ‎Literary Criticism    One Century of Karl Jaspers' General Psychopathologybooks.google.com › books He then outlines the most important implications of the form–content distinction in a statement which is identical in the first three editions, with only minor ... Giovanni Stanghellini, ‎Thomas Fuchs - 2013 - ‎Medical“I include the supermaxim-'Be perspicuous' –” Or supramaxim. So the “more specific maxims and submaxims” becomes the clumsier “supermaxims and maxims”Note that in under the first category it is about making your contribution, etc. Now it is the utterer himself who has to be ‘perspicuous,’ as it is the utterer who has to be relevant. It’s not the weaker, “Make your contribution a perspicuous one.” Or “Make your contribution a relevant one (to the purposes of the exchange).”Knowing that most confound ‘perspicacity’ with ‘perspicuity,’ he added “sic,” but forgot to pronounce it, in case it was felt as insulting. He has another ‘sic’ under the prolixity maxim.“and various maxims such as: The “such as” is a colloquialism.Surely it was added in the ‘lecture’ format. In written, it becomes viz. The fact that the numbers them makes for ‘such as’ rather disimplicatable. “1. Avoid obscurity of expression.”Unless you are Heracleitus. THEY told me, Heraclitus, they told me you were dead,                    /They brought me bitter news to hear and bitter tears to shed./I wept as I remember'd how often you and I/Had tired the sun with talking and sent him down the sky./And now that thou art lying, my dear old Carian guest,/A handful of grey ashes, long, long ago at rest,/Still are thy pleasant voices, thy nightingales, awake;/For Death, he taketh all away, but them he cannot take. In a way this is entailed by “Be perspicuous,” if that means ‘be clear,’ in obtuse English.Be clearTherefore, or what is the same thing. Thou shalt not not be obscure.2. Avoid ambiguity.”Except as a trope, or ‘figure, (schema, figura). “Aequi-vocate, if that will please your clever addressee.” Cf. Parker’s zeugma: “My apartment was so small, that I've barely enough room to lay a hat and a few friends“3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).”Here he added a ‘sic’ that he failed to pronounce in case it may felt as insulting. But the idea of a self-refuting conversational maxim is surely Griceian, in a quessertive way. Since this concerns FORM rather than CONTENT, it is not meant to overlap with ‘informativeness.’So given that p and q are equally informative, if q is less brief (longer – ars longa, vita brevis), utter p. This has nothing to do with logical strength. It is just to be assessed in a SYNTACTICAL way.Vide “Syntactics in Semiotics”“4. Be orderly.”This involves two moves in the contribution or ‘turn.’ One cannot be ‘disorderly,’ if one just utters ‘p.’ So this involves a molecular proposition. The ‘order’ can be of various types. Indeed, one of Grice’s example is “Jones is between Smith and Williams” – order of merit or size?‘Between’ is not ambiguous!There is LOGICAL order, which is prior.But there is a more absolute use of ‘orderly.’ ‘keep your room tidy.’orderly (adj.) 1570s, "arranged in order," from order (n.) + -ly (1). Meaning "observant of rule or discipline, not unruly" is from 1590s. Related: Orderliness.He does not in the lecture give a philosophical example, but later will in revisiting the Urmson example and indeed Strawson, but mainly Urmson, “He went to bed and took off his boots,” and indeed Ryle, “She felt frail and took arsenic.”“And one might need others.”Regarding ‘mode,’ that is. “It is obvious that the observance of some of these maxims is a matter of less urgency than is the observance of others;”Not as per ‘moral’ demands, since he’ll say these are not MORAL.“a man who has expressed himself with undue prolixity would, in general, be open to milder comment than would a man who has said something he believes to be false.”Except in Oscar Wilde’s circle, where they were obsessed with commenting on prolixities! Cf. Hare against Kant, “Where is the prisoner?” “He left [while he is hiding in the attic].”That’s why Grice has the ‘in general.’“Indeed, it might be felt that the importance of at least the first maxim of Quality is such that it should not be included in a scheme of the kind I am constructing;”But since ‘should’ is weak, I will. “other maxims come into operation only on the assumption that this maxim of Quality is satisfied.”So the keyword is co-ordination.“While this may be correct, so far as the generation of implicatures is concerned it seems to play a role not totally different from the other maxims, and it will be convenient, for the present at least, to treat it as a member of the list of maxims.”He is having weighing, and clashing in mind. And he wants a conversationalist to honour truth over informativeness, which begs the question that as he puts it, ‘false’ “information” is no information.In the earlier lectures, tutoring, or as a university lecturer, he was sure that his tutee will know that he was introducing maxims ONLY WITH THE PURPOSE, NEVER TO MORALISE, but as GENERATORS of implicata – in philosophers’s mistakes.But this manoeuver is only NOW disclosed. Those without a philosophical background may not realise about this. “There are, of course, all sorts of other maxims (aesthetic, social, or moral in character), such as 'Be polite', that are also normally observed by participants in talk exchanges, and these may also generate nonconventional implicatures.”He is obviously aware that Émile DurkheimWill  Know that ‘conversational’ is subsumed under ‘social,’ if not Williamson (perhaps).  – keyword: ‘norm.’ Grice excludes ‘moral’ because while a moral maxim makes a man ‘good,’ a conversational maxim makes a man a ‘good’ conversationalist. Not because there is a distinction in principle!“The conversational maxims, however, and the conversational implicatures connected with them, are specially connected (I hope) with”He had this way with idioms.Cf. Einstein,“E =, I hope, mc2.”“the particular purposes that talk (and so, talk exchange)”He is playing Dutch.The English lost the Anglo-Saxon for ‘talk.’ They have ‘language,’ and the Hun has ‘Sprache.’ But only the Dutch have ‘taal.’So he is distinguishing between the TOOL and the USE of the TOOL.“is adapted lo serve and is primlarily employed to serve.”The ‘adapted’ is mechanistic talk. He mentions ‘evolutionarily’ elsewhere. He means ‘the particular goal language evolved to serve, viz.’ groom.Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language is a 1996 book by the anthropologist Robin Dunbar, in which the author argues that language evolved from social grooming. He further suggests that a stage of this evolution was the telling of gossip, an argument supported by the observation that language is adapted for storytelling.  The book has been criticised on the grounds that since words are so cheap, Dunbar's "vocal grooming" would fall short in amounting to an honest signal. Further, the book provides no compelling story[citation needed] for how meaningless vocal grooming sounds might become syntactical speech.  Thesis Dunbar argues that gossip does for group-living humans what manual grooming does for other primates—it allows individuals to service their relationships and thus maintain their alliances on the basis of the principle: if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Dunbar argues that as humans began living in increasingly larger social groups, the task of manually grooming all one's friends and acquaintances became so time-consuming as to be unaffordable.[1] In response to this problem, Dunbar argues that humans invented 'a cheap and ultra-efficient form of grooming'—vocal grooming. To keep allies happy, one now needs only to 'groom' them with low-cost vocal sounds, servicing multiple allies simultaneously while keeping both hands free for other tasks. Vocal grooming then evolved gradually into vocal language—initially in the form of 'gossip'.[1] Dunbar's hypothesis seems to be supported by the fact that the structure of language shows adaptations to the function of narration in general.[2]  Criticism Critics of Dunbar's theory point out that the very efficiency of "vocal grooming"—the fact that words are so cheap—would have undermined its capacity to signal honest commitment of the kind conveyed by time-consuming and costly manual grooming.[3] A further criticism is that the theory does nothing to explain the crucial transition from vocal grooming—the production of pleasing but meaningless sounds—to the cognitive complexities of syntactical speech.[citation needed]  References  Dunbar, R. I. M. (1996). Grooming, gossip and the evolution of language. London: Faber and Faber. ISBN 9780571173969. OCLC 34546743.  von Heiseler, Till Nikolaus (2014) Language evolved for storytelling in a super-fast evolution. In: R. L. C. Cartmill, Eds. Evolution of Language. London: World Scientific, pp. 114-121. https://www.academia.edu/9648129/LANGUAGE_EVOLVED_FOR_STORYTELLING_IN_A_SUPER-FAST_EVOLUTION  Power, C. 1998. Old wives' tales: the gossip hypothesis and the reliability of cheap signals. In J. R. Hurford, M. Studdert Kennedy and C. Knight (eds), Approaches to the Evolution of Language: Social and Cognitive Bases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111 29. Categories: 1996 non-fiction booksAmerican non-fiction booksBooks by Robin DunbarEnglish-language booksEvolution of languageHarvard University Press booksPopular science booksGrice: “I have stated my maxims”the maxims“as if this purpose were a maximally effective exchange of information;”“MAXIMALLY EFFECTIVE”“this specification is, of course, too narrow,”But who cares?This is slightly sad in that he is thinking Strawson and forgetting his (Grice’s) own controversy with G. A. Paul on the sense-datum, for ‘the pillar box seems red’ and ‘the pillar box is red,’ involving an intensional context, are less amenable to fall under the maxims.“and the scheme needs to be generalized to allow for such general purposes as influencing or directing the actions of others.”He has a more obvious way below:Giving and receving informationInfluencing and being influenced by others.He never sees the purpose as MAXIMAL INFORMATION, but maximally effective EXCHANGE of information – does he mean merely ‘transmission.’ It may well be.If I say, “I rain,” I have ex-changed information.I don’t need anything in return.If so, it makes sense that he is equating INFORMING With  INFLUENCING or better DIRECTION your addresse’s talk.Note that, for all he loved introspection and conversational avowals, and self-commands, these do not count.It’s informing your addressee about some state of affairs, and directing his action. Grice is always clear that the ULTIMATE GOAL is the utterer’s ACTION.“As one of my avowed aims is to see talking as a special case or variety of purposive, indeed rational, behavior, it may be worth noting that the specific expectations or presumptions connected with at least some of the foregoing maxims have their analogues in the sphere of transactions that are not talk exchanges.”Transaction is a good one.TRANS-ACTIO“I list briefly one such analog for each conversational category.”While he uses ‘conversational category,’ he also applies it to the second bit: ‘category of conversational quantity,’ ‘category of conversational quality,’ ‘category of conversational relation,’ and ‘category of conversational mode.’ But it is THIS application that justifies the sub-specifications.They are not categories of thought or ontological or ‘expression’.His focus is on the category as conversation.His focus is on the ‘conversational category.’“1. Quantity. If you are assisting me to mend a car, I expect your contribution to be neither more nor less than is required; if, e. g., at a particular stage I need fourscrews, I expect you to hand me four, rather than two or six. He always passed six, since two will drop.“Make your contribution neither more nor less informative than is required (for the purposes of the exchange).”This would have covered the maxi and the min.“NEITHER MORE NOR LESS” is the formula of effectiveness, and economy, and minimization of expenditure.“2. Quality. I expect your contributions to be genuine and not spurious.”Here again he gives an expansion of the conversational category, which is more general than ‘try to make your contribution one that is true,’ and the point about the ‘quality of information,’ which he did not make.Perhaps because it would have led him to realise that ‘false’ information, i.e. ‘information’ which is not genuine and spurious, is not ‘information.’But “Make your contribution one that is genuine and not spurious.”Be candid.Does not need a generalization as it covers both informational and directive utterances.“If I need sugar as an ingredient in the cake you are assisting me to make, I do not expect you to hand me salt;”Or you won’t eat the cake.“if I need a spoon, I do not expect a trick spoon made of rubber.”Spurious and genuine are different.In the ‘trick spoon,’ the conversationalist is just not being SERIOUS.But surely a maxim, “Be serious” is too serious. – Seriously!“3. Relation. I expect a partner's contribution to be appropriate to immediate needs at each stage of the transaction;”Odd that he would use ‘appropriate,’ which was the topic of the “Prolegomena,” and what he was supposed to EXPLAIN, not to use in the explanation.For each of the philosophers making a mistake are giving a judgment of ‘appropriateness,’ conversational appropriateness. Here it is good that he relativises the ‘appropriateness’ TO the ‘need’.Grice is not quite sticking to the etymology of ‘relatio’ and ‘refer,’ bring y back to x. Or he is. Bring y (your contribution) back to the need x.Odd that he thinks he’ll expand more on relation, when he did a good bit!“if I am mixing ingredients for a cake, I do not expect to be handed a good book, or even an oven cloth (though this might be an appropriate contribution at a later stage).”“I just expect you to be silent.”“4. Manner. I expect a partner to make it clear what contribution he is making, and to execute his performance with reasonable dispatch.” For Lewis, clarity is not enough!The ‘Execute your performance with reasonable dispatch!’ seems quite different from “Be perspicuous.”“Execute your performance with reasonable dispatch”Is more like“Execute your performance”And not just STAND there!A: What time is it B just stands there“These analogies are relevant to what I regard as a fundamental question about the principle of conversational helpfulness and its attendant conversational maxims,”For Boethius, it is a PRINCIPLE because it does not need an answer!“viz., what the basis is for the assumption which we seem to make, and on which (I hope) it will appear that a great range of implicatures depend [especially as we keep on EXPLOITING the rather otiose maxims], that talkers will ingeneral (ceteris paribus and in the absence of indications to the contrary) proceed in the manner that these principles prescribe.”Grice really doesn’t care! He is into the EXPLOITING of the maxim, as in his response to the Scots philosopher G. A. Paul:“Paul, I surely do not mean to imply that you may end up believing that I have a doubt about the pillar box being red: it seems red to me, as I have this sense-datum of ‘redness’ which attaches to me as I am standing in front of the pillar box in clear daylight.”Grice is EXPLOITING the desideratum, YET STILL SAYING SOMETHING TRUE, so at least he is not VIOLATING the principle of conversational helpfulness, or the category of conversational quality, or the desideratum of conversational candour.And that is what he is concerned with.  “A dull but, no doubt at a certain level, adequate answer is that it is just a well-recognized empirical fact that *people* (not pirots, although perhaps Oxonians, rather than from Malagasy) DO behave in these ways;”Elinor Ochs was terrified Grice’s maxims are violated – never exploited, she thought – in Madagascar.“they, i. e. people, or Oxonians, have learned to do so in childhood and not lost the habit of doing so; and, indeed, it would involve a good deal of effort to make a radical departure from the habit. It is much easier, for example, to tell the truth than to invent lies.”Effort again; least effort. And ease. Great Griceian guidelines!“I am, however, enough of a rationalist to want to find a basis that underlies these facts,”OR EXPLAIN.“undeniable though they may be;”BEIGIN OF A THEORY FOR A THEORY – not the theory for the generation of implicate, but for the theory of conversation.He is less interested in this than the other. “I would like to be able to think of the standard type of conversational practice not merely as something that all or most do IN FACT follow but as something that it is REASONABLE for us to follow, that we SHOULD NOT abandon. For a time, I was attracted by the idea that observance of the principle of conversational helpfulness and the conversational maxims, in a talk exchange, could be thought of as a quasi-contractual matter, with parallels outside the realm of discourse. If you pass by when I am struggling with my stranded car, I no doubt have some degree of expectation that you will offer help, but once you join me in tinkering under the hood, my expectations become stronger and take more specific forms (in the absence of indications that you are merely an incompetent meddler); and talk exchanges seemed to me to exhibit, characteristically, certain features that jointly distinguish cooperative transactions:”So how is this not quasi-contractual?  He is listing THIS OR THAT FEATURE that jointly distinguishes a cooperative transaction – all grand great words.But he wants to say that ‘quasi-contractual’ is NO RATIONAL!He is playing, as a philosopher, with the very important point of what follows from what.A1. Conversasation is purposiveA2. Conversation is rationalA3. Conversation is cooperativeA4. There is such a thing as non-rational cooperation (is there?)So he is aiming at the fact that the FEATURES that jointly distinguish cooperative transactions NEED NOT BE PRESENT, and Grice surely does not wish THAT to demolish his model. If he bases it in general constraints of rationality, the better.“1. The participants have some common immediate aim, like getting a car mended; their ultimate aims may, of course, be independent and even in conflict-each may want to get the car mended in order to drive off, leaving the other stranded. In characteristic talk exchanges, there is a common aim even if, as in an over-the-wall chat, it is a second-order one,”Is he being logical?“second-order predicate calculus”“meta-language”He means higher or supervenientOr ‘operative’“, that each party should, for the time being, identify himself with the transitory conversational interests of the other.”By identify he means assume.YOU HAVE TO DESIRE what your partner desires.The intersection between your desirability and your addressee’s desirability is not NULL.And the way to do this is conditionalIF: You perceive B has Goal G, you assume Goal G. “2. The contributions of the participants .should be dovetailed, mutually dependent. Unless it’s one of those seminars by Grice and J. F. Thomson!“3. There is some sort of understanding (which may be explicit but which is often tacit)”i.e. implicated rather than explicated – part of the implicatum, or implicitum, rather than the explicatum or explicitum.“that, other things being equal, the transaction should continue in appropriate style unless both parties are agreeable that it should terminate. You do not just shove off or start doing something else.”This is especially tricky over the phone (“He never ends!” Or in psychiatric interviews!)Note that ‘starting doing something else’ may work. E. g. watch your watch!“But while some such quasi-contractual basis as this may apply to some cases, there are too many types of exchange, like quarreling and letter writing, that it fails to fit comfortably.”TWO OPPOSITE EXAMPLES.Fighting is arguing is competition, adversarial, epagogue, not conversation, cooperation,  friendly, collaborative venture, and diagoge.Letter writing is usually otiose – “what, with the tellyphone!” And letter writing is no conversation.“In any case, one feels that the talker who is irrelevant or obscure has primarily let down not his audience but himself.”And the talker who is mendacious has primarily let Kant down!”“So I would like t< be able to show that observance of the principle of conversational helfpulness and maxims is reasonal de (rational) along the following lines”That any Aristkantian rationalist would agree to.“: that any one who cares about the goals that are central to conversation/communication (e.g., giving and receiving information, influencing and being influenced by others) must be expected to have an interest, given suitable circumstances, in participation in talk exchanges that will be profitable only on the assumption that they are conducted in general accordance with the principle of conversational helpfulness and the maxims.”Where the keyword is: profit, effort, least effort, no energy, no undue effort, no unnecessary trouble. That conversation is reasonable unless it is unreasonable. That a conversational exchange should be rational unless it shows features of irrationality.“Whether any such conclusion can be reached, I am uncertain;”It’s not clear what the premises are!Plus, he means DEDUCTIVELY reached? Transcendentally reached? Empirically reached? Philosophically reached? Conclusively reached? Etc.It seems the conclusion need not be reached, because we never departed from the state of the affairs that the conclusion describes.“in any case, I am fairly sure that I cannot reach it until I am a good deal clearer about the nature of relevance and of the circumstances in which it is required.”For perhaps “I don’t want to imply any doubt, but that pillar box seems red.”IS irrelevant, yet true!“It is now time to show the connection between the principle of conversational helfpulness and the conversational maxims, on the one hand, and conversational implicature on the other.”This is clearer in the seminars. The whole thing was a preamble “A participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in various ways, which include the following: 1. He may quietly and unostentatiously VIOLATE (or fail to observe) a maxim; if so, in some cases he will be liable to mislead.”And be blamed by Kant.Mislead should not worry Grice, cf. “Misleading, but true.”The violate (or fail to observe) shows that (1) covers two specifications. Tom may be unaware that there was such a maxim as to ‘be brief, avoid unnecessary prolixity, unless you need to eschew obfuscation!”This is Grice’s anti-Ryleism. He doesn’t want to say that there is KNOWLEDGE of the maxims. For one may know what the maxims are and fail to observe them “2. He may OPT OUT from the operation both of the maxim and of the principle of conversational helpfulness; he may say, indicate, or allow it to become plain that he is unwilling to cooperate in the way the maxim requires. He may say, e. g., I cannot say more; my lips are sealed.” Where is the criminal?I cannot say more; my lips are sealed.I shall unseal them. What do you mean ‘cannot.’ You don’t mean ‘may not,’ do you?I think Grice means ‘may not.’Is the universe finite? Einstein: I cannot say more; my lips are sealed. “3. He may be faced by a CLASH of maxims [That’s why he needs more than one – or at least two specifications of the same maxim]: He may be unable, e. g., to fulfill the first maxim of Quantity (Be as informative as is required) without violating the second maxim of Quality (Have adequate evidence for what you say).” Odd that he doesn’t think this generates implicature: He has obviously studied the sub-perceptualities here.For usually, a phenomenalist, like Sextus, thinks that by utteringThe pillar box seems red to me – that is all I have adequate evidence forHe is conveying that he is unable to answer the question (“What colour is the pillar box?”) And being as ‘informative’ as is requiredWithout saying something for which it is not the case that he has or will ever have adequate evidence.Cf.Student at Koenigsberg to Kant: What’s the noumenon?Kant: My lips are sealed.It may require some research to list ALL CLASHES.Because each clash shows some EVALUATION qua reasoning, and it may be all VERY CETERIS PARIBUS.Cf.Where is the criminal?My lips are sealed.The utterer has NOT opted out. He has answered, via implicature, that he is not telling. He is being relevant. He is not telling because he doesn’t want to DISCLOSE the whereabouts of the alleged criminal, etc. For Kant, this is not a conversation! Odd that Grice is ‘echoing Kant,’ where Kant would hardly allow a clash with ‘Be truthful!’“4. He may FLOUT a maxim; that is, he may BLATANTLY fail to fulfill (or observe) it.Mock? Taunt?The magic flute. Grice’s magic flute.flout (v.) "treat with disdain or contempt" (transitive), 1550s, intransitive sense "mock, jeer, scoff" is from 1570s; of uncertain origin; perhaps a special use of Middle English “flowten,”"to play the flute" (compare Middle Dutch “fluyten,” "to play the flute," also "to jeer"). Related: Flouted; flouting.Grice: “One thing we do not know is if the flute came to England via Holland.”“Or he may, as we may say, ‘play the flute’ with a maxim, expecting others to be agreeable.”“Or he may, as we might say, ‘play the flute’ with the conversational maxim, expecting others to join with some other musical instrument – or something – occasionally the same.”“On the assumption that the speaker is able to fulfill the maxim and to do so without violating another maxim (because oi a clash), is not opting out, and is not, in view of the blatancy of his performance, trying to mislead,”This is interesting. It’s the TRYING to mislead.Grice and G. A. Paul:Grice cannot be claimed to have TRIED to mislead, and thus deemed to have misled G. A. Paul, even if he had, when he said, “I hardly think there is any doubt about it, but that pillar box seems red to me.”“the hearer is faced with a minor problem:”Implicature: This reasoning is all abductive – to the ‘best’ explanation“How can his saying what he did say be reconciled with the supposition that he is observing the overall principle of conversational helfpulness?”This was one of Grice’s conversations with G. A. Paul:Paul (to Grice): This is what I do not understand, Grice. How can your saying what you did say be reconciled with the supposition that you are not going to mislead me?”Unfortunately, on that Saturday, Paul went to the Irish Sea. Grice “This situation is one that characteristically”There are others – vide clash, above – but not marked by Grice as one such situation – “gives rise to a conversational implicature; and when a conversational implicature is generated”Chomskyan jargon borrowed from Austin (“I don’t see why Austin admired Chomsky so!”)“in this way, I shall say that a maxim is being EXPLOITED.”Why not ‘flouted’? Some liked the idea of playing the flute.EXPLOIT is figurative.Grice exploits a Griceian maxim.exploit (v.) c. 1400, espleiten, esploiten "to accomplish, achieve, fulfill," from Old French esploitier, espleiter "carry out, perform, accomplish," from esploit (see exploit (n.)). The sense of "use selfishly" first recorded 1838, from a sense development in French perhaps from use of the word with reference to mines, etc. (compare exploitation). Related: Exploited; exploiting.exploit (n.) late 14c., "outcome of an action," from Old French esploit "a carrying out; achievement, result; gain, advantage" (12c., Modern French exploit), a very common word, used in senses of "action, deed, profit, achievement," from Latin explicitum "a thing settled, ended, or displayed," noun use of neuter of explicitus, past participle of explicare "unfold, unroll, disentangle," from ex "out" (see ex-) + plicare "to fold" (from PIE root *plek- "to plait").  Meaning "feat, achievement" is c. 1400. Sense evolution is from "unfolding" to "bringing out" to "having advantage" to "achievement." Related: Exploits. exploitative (adj.) "serving for or used in exploitation," 1882, from French exploitatif, from exploit (see exploit (n.)). Alternative exploitive (by 1859) appears to be a native formation from exploit + -ive.exploitation (n.) 1803, "productive working" of something, a positive word among those who used it first, though regarded as a Gallicism, from French exploitation, noun of action from exploiter (see exploit (v.)). Bad sense developed 1830s-50s, in part from influence of French socialist writings (especially Saint Simon), also perhaps influenced by use of the word in U.S. anti-slavery writing; and exploitation was hurled in insult at activities it once had crowned as praise.  It follows from this science [conceived by Saint Simon] that the tendency of the human race is from a state of antagonism to that of an universal peaceful association -- from the dominating influence of the military spirit to that of the industriel one; from what they call l'exploitation de l'homme par l'homme to the exploitation of the globe by industry. ["Quarterly Review," April & July 1831] Grice: “I am now in a position to characterize the notion of conversational implicature.”Not to provide a reductive analysis. The concept is too dear for me to torture it with one of my metaphysical routines.”“A man who, by (in, when) saying (or making as if to say) that p”That seems good for the analysandumGrice loves the “by (in, when)” “(or making as if to). Note the oratio obliqua.Or ‘that’-clause. So this is not ‘uttering’As in the analysans of ‘meaning that.’“By uttering ‘x’ U means that p.’The “by” already involves a clause with a ‘that’-clause.So this is not a report of a physical event.It is a report embued already with intentionality.The utterer is not just ‘uttering’The utterer is EXPLICITLY conveying that p.We cannot say MEANING that p.Because Grice uses “mean” as opposed to “explicitly convey”His borderline scenarios are such,“Keep me company, dear”“If we are to say that when he uttererd that he means that his wife was to keep him company or not is all that will count for me to change my definition of ‘mean’ or not.”Also irony.But here it is more complicated. A man utters, “Grice defeated Strawson”If he means it ironically, to mean that Strawson defeated Grice, it is not the case that the utterer MEANT the opposite. He explicitly conveyed that.Grice considers the Kantian ‘cause and effect,’“If I am dead, I shall have no time for reading.”He is careful here that the utterer does not explicitly conveys that he will have no time for reading – because it’s conditioned on he being dead.“has implicated that q,” “may be said to have conversationally implicated that q,”So this is a specification alla arbor porphyrana of ‘By explicitly conveying that p, U implicitly conveys that q.’Where he is adding the second-order adverb, ‘conversationally.’By explicitly conveying that p, U has implicitly conveyed that q in a CONVERSATIONAL FASHION” iff or if“PROVIDED THAT”“(1) he is to be presumed to be observing the conversational maxims, or at least the principle of conversational helfpulness;”Especially AT LEAST, because he just said that an implicatum is ‘generated’ (Chomskyan jargon) when  AT LEAST A MAXIM IS played the flute.“(2) the supposition that he is aware that, or thinks that, q is required in order to make his saying or making as if to say p (or doing so in THOSE terms) consistent with this presumption;”THIS IS THE CRUCIAL CLAUSE – and the one that not only requires ONE’S RATIONALITY, but the expectation that one’s addressee, BEING RATIONAL, will expect the utterer to BE RATIONAL.This is the ‘rationalisation’ he refers to in “Retrospective Epilogue.”Note that ‘q’ is obviously now the content of a state in the utterer’s soul – a desideratum or a creditum --, at least a CREDITUM, in view of Grice’s view of everything at least exhibitive and perhaps protreptic --“and (3) the speaker thinks (and would expect the hearer to think that the speaker thinks) that it is within the competence of the hearer to work out, or grasp intuitively, that the supposition mentioned in (2) IS required.”All that jargon about mutuality is a result of Strawson tutoring Schiffer!“Apply this to my initial example, to B's remark that C has not yet been to prison.”What made Grice think of such a convoluted example?He was laughing at Searle for providing non-philosophical examples, and there he is!“In a suitable setting A might reason as follows:”“(1) B has APPARENTLY violated – indeed he has played the flute with -- the maxim 'Be relevant' and so may be regarded as [ALSO] having flouted one of the maxims conjoining perspicuity,”In previous versions, under the desideratum of conversational clarity Grice had it that the desideratum included the expectation of this ‘relatedness’ AND that of ‘perspicuity’ (sic). In the above, Grice is stating that if you are irrelevant (or provide an unrelated contribution) you are not being perspicuous.But “He hasn’t been to prison” is perspicuous enough.And so is the link to the question --.Plus, wasn’t perspicuity only to apply to the ‘mode,’ to the ‘form,’ rather than the content.Here it is surely the CONTENT – that it is not the case that C is a criminal – that triggers it all.So, since there is a “not,” here this is parallel to the example examined by Strawson in the footnote to “Logical Theory.”The utterer is saying that it is not the case that C has been in prison yet.The ‘yet’ makes all the difference, even if a Fregeian colouring ‘convention’!“It is not the case that C has been in prison” Is, admittedly, not very perspicuous.“So what, neither has the utterer nor the addressee.”So there is an equivocation here as to the utterance perhaps not being perspicuous, while the utterer IS perspicuous.“yet I have no reason to suppose that he is opting out from the operation of the CP;”Or playing the flute with my beloved principle of conversational helpfulness.“(2) given the circumstances, I can regard his irrelevance as only apparent – as when we say that a plastic flower is not a flower, or to use Austin’s example, “That decoy duck is surely not a duck! That trick rubber spoon is no spoon! -- if, and only if, I suppose him to think that C is potentially dishonest;”As many are!The potentially is the trick.Recall Aristotle: “Will I say that I am potentially dishonest?! Not me! PLATO was! Theophrastus WILL! Or is it ‘shall’?”“(3) B knows that I am capable of working out step (2). So B implicates that C is potentially dishonest.'”Unless he goes on like I go with G. A. Paul, “I do not mean of course to mean that I mean that he is potentially dishonest, because although he is, he shouldn’t, or rather, I don’t think you are expecting me to convey explicitly that he shouln’t or should for that matter.”“The presence of a conversational implicature must be capable of being worked out; for even if it can in fact be intuitively grasped, unless the intuition is replaceable by an argument, the implicature (if present at all) will not count as a CONVERSATIONAL implicature.”This is the Humpty Dumpty in Grice.Cf. Provide the sixteen derivational steps in Jane Austen’s Novel remark, “I sense and sensibilia” – This is what happens sometimes when people who are not philosophers engage with Grice!For a philosopher, it is clear Grice is not being serious there. He is mocking an ‘ideal’-language philosopher (as Waissmann called them). Let’s revise the word:By “counting” he means “DEEM.” He has said that “She is poor, but she is honest,” is NOT CALCULABLE. So if an argument is not produced, this may not be a matter of argument.Philosophers are OBSESSED, and this is Grice’s trick, with ARGUMENT. Recall Grice on Hardie, “Unlike my father, who was rather blunt, Hardie taught me to ARGUE for this or that reason.”His mention of “INTUITION” is not perspicuous. He told J. M. Rountree that meaning is a matter of INTUITION, not a theoretical concept within a theory.So it’s not like Grice does not trust the intuition. So the point is TERMINOLOGICAL and methodological. Terminological, in that this is a specfification of ‘conversationally,’ rather than for cases like “How rude!” (he just flouted the maxim ‘be polite!’ but ‘be polite’ is not a CONVERSATIONAL maxim. Is Grice implicating that nonconversational nonconventional implicate are not calculable? We don’t think so.But he might.I think he will. Because in the case of ‘aesthetic maxim,’ ‘moral maxim,’ and ‘social maxim’ – such as “be polite,” – the calculation may involve such degree of gradation that you better not get Grice started!“it will be a CONVENTIONAL implicature.”OK – So perhaps he does allow that non-conventional non-conversational implicate ARE calculable.But he may add:“Unless the intuition is replaceable by an argument, it will not be a conversational implicature; it will be a conventional implicature.”Strawson: “And what nonconventional nonconversational implicate?Grice: You are right, Strawon. Let me modify and refine the point: “It will be a dull, boring, undetachable, conventional implicatum – OR any of those dull implicate that follow from (or result – I won’t use ‘generate’) one of those maxims that I have explicitly said they were NOT conversational maxims.“For surely, there is something very ‘contradictory-sounding’ to me saying that the implicatum is involved with the flouting of a maxim which is NOT a conversational maxim, and yet that the maxim is a CONVERSATIONAL implicature.”“Therefore, I restrict calculability to CONVERSATIONAL IMPLICATURE, because it involves the conversational maxims that contributors are expected to be reciprocal; whereas you’ll agree that Queen Victoria does not need to be abide with ‘be polite,’ as she frequently did not – “We are not amused, you fools! Only Gilbert and Sullivan amuse me!””“To work out that a particular CONVERSATIONAL [never mind nonconversational nonconventional] implicature is present, the hearer will reply on the following data:”As opposed to ‘sense-datum.’Perhaps assumption, alla Gettier, is better:“ (1) the conventional meaning of the words used, together with the identity of any references that may be involved;”WoW Quite a Bit. This is the reason why Grice entitled WoW his first book.In he hasn’t been to ‘prison’ we are not using ‘prison’ as Witters does (“My language is my prison”).Strawson: But is that the CONVENTIONAL meaning? Even for King Alfred?He hasn't been to prisonprison (n.) early 12c., from Old French prisoun "captivity, imprisonment; prison; prisoner, captive" (11c., Modern French prison), altered (by influence of pris "taken;" see prize (n.2)) from earlier preson, from Vulgar Latin *presionem, from Latin prensionem (nominative prensio), shortening of prehensionem (nominative *prehensio) "a taking," noun of action from past participle stem of prehendere "to take" (from prae- "before," see pre-, + -hendere, from PIE root *ghend- "to seize, take"). "Captivity," hence by extension "a place for captives," the MAIN modern sense.” (There are 34 other unmain ones). He hasn't been to a place for captives yet.You mean he is one.Cf. He hasn't been to asylum.You mean Foucault?(2) the principle of conversational helpfulness and this and that conversational maxim;”This is more crucial seeing that the utterer may utter something which has no conventional meaning?Cf. Austin, “Don’t ask for the meaning of a word! Less so for the ‘conventional’ one!”What Grice needs is ‘the letter,’ so he can have the ‘spirit’ as the implicatum. Or he needs the lines, so he can have the implicatum as a reading ‘between the lines.’If the utterance is a gesture, like showing a bandaged leg, or a Neapolitan rude gesture, it is difficult to distinguish or to identify what is EXPLICITLY conveyed.By showing his bandaged leg, U EXPLICITLY conveys that he has a bandaged leg. And IMPLICITLY conveys that he cannot really play cricket.The requirement of ‘denotatum’ is even tricker, “Swans are beautiful.” Denotata? Quantificational? Substitutional?In any case, Grice is not being circular in requiring that the addressee should use as an assumption or datum that U thinks that the expression E is generally uttered by utterers when they m-intend that p.But there are tricks here.“(3) the context, linguistic or otherwise, of the utterance;”Cf. Grice, “Is there a general context for a general theory of context?”“(4) other items of background knowledge;”So you don’t get:How is C getting on at the bank? My lips are sealed Why do you care Mind your own business. Note that “he hasn’t been to prison yet” (meaning the tautologous ‘he is potentially dishonest’) is the sort of tricky answer to a tricky question! In asking, the asker KNOWS that he’ll get that sort of reply knowing the utterer as he does. “and (5) the fact (or supposed fact) that all relevant items falling under the previous headings are available to both participants and both participants know or assume this to be the case.”This is Schiffer reported by Strawson.“A general pattern for the working out of a conversational implicature might be given as follows:”Again the abductive argument that any tutee worth of Hardie might expect 'He has said that p;”Ie explicitly conveys that p.Note the essential oratio obliqua, or that-clause.“there is no reason to suppose. that he is not observing the maxims, or at least the principle of conversational helpfulness”That is, he is not a prisoner of war, or anything.“He could not be doing this unless he thought that q;”Or rather, even if more tautologically still, he could not be doing so REASONABLY, as Austin would forbid, unless…’ For if the utterer is IRRATIONAL (or always playing the flute) surely he CAN do it!“he knows (and knows that I know that he knows) that I can see that the supposition that he thinks that q IS required;”Assumed MUTUAL RATIONALITY, which Grice fails to have added as assumption or datum. Cf. paraconsistent logics – “he is using ‘and’ and ‘or’ in a ‘deviant’ logical way, to echo Quine,” – He is an intuitionist, his name is Dummett.“he has done nothing to stop me thinking that q; he intends me to think, or is at least willing to allow me to think, that q; and so he has implicated that q.'”The ‘or’ is delightful, for m-intention requires ‘intention,’ but the intention figures in previous positions, so ‘willingess to allow the addressee to think’ does PERFECTLY FINE! Especially at Oxford where we are ever so subtle!

conversational point: Grice distinguishes between ‘point’ and ‘conversational point.’ “What’s the good of being quoted by another philosopher on the point of ‘point.’?” But that is what Winch does. So, as a revenge, Grice elaborated on the point. P. London-born philosopher. He quotes  Grice in a Royal Philosophy talk: “Grice’s point is that we should distinguish the truth of one’s remark form the point of one’s remarks – Grice’s example is: “Surely I have neither any doubt nor any desire to deny that the pillar box in front of me is red, and yet I won’t hesitate to say that it seems red to me” – Surely pointless, but an incredible truth meant to refute G. A. Paul

conversational reason. With ‘reason,’ Grice is following Ariskant. There’s the ‘ratio’ and there’s the “Vernunft.” “To converse” can mean to have sex (cf. know) so one has to be careful. Grice is using ‘conversational’ casually. First, he was aware of the different qualifications for ‘implication’. There is Nowell-Smith’s contextual implication and C. K. Grant’s ‘pragmatic implication.’ So he chose ‘conversational implication’ himself. Later, when narrowing down the notion, he distinguished between ‘conversational implication’ and ‘non-conversational implication’: “Thank you. B: You’re welcome.” If B is following the maxim, ‘be polite,’ the implication that he is pleased he was able to assist his emissor is IMPLICATED but not conversationally so. It is not a ‘conversational implication.’ Grice needs to restrict the notion for philosophical purposes. Both for the framework of his theory (it is easier to justify transcendentally conversational implication than it is non-conversational implication). Note that ‘I am pleased I was able to assist’ is CANCELLABLE or defeatible, so that’s not the issue. In any case, both ‘conversational impication’ and these type of calculable ‘non-conversational’ implication still yielding from some ‘maxim’ (such as ‘be polite’) Grice covers under the generic “non-conventional” precisely because they can be defeated. When it comes to NON-DEFEASIBLE implicata, Grice uses ‘conventional implication’ (as in “She was poor but she was honest.”). Grice did not find these fun. And it shows. Strawson stuck with them, but his philosophising about them ain’t precisely ‘fun.’ Used in Retrospective, p. 369. Also: conversational rationality. Surely, “principle of conversational rationality” sounds otiose. Expectation of mutual rationality sounds better. Critique of conversational reason sounds best! Grice is careful here. When he provides a reductive analysis of ‘reasoning,’ this goes as follows: the reasoner reasons from premise to conclusion. That’s the analysandum. What’s the analysans? At least it involves TWO clauses: If the reasoner reasons from premise to conclusion, it is assumed that he BELIEVES that the premise obtains; and he believes that the conclusion obtains. This has to be generalised to cover the desiderative, using ‘accept.’ He accepts that the premise obtains, and he accepts that the conclusion obtains. But there is obviously a SECOND condition: that the conclusion follows from the premise! He uses ‘demonstrably’ for that, or the demonstratum.’ He is open as to what kind of yielding is involved because he wants to allow for inductive reasoning and abductive reasoning, not just deductive reasoning. AND THERE IS A TYPICALLY GRICEIAN third condition, involving CAUSATION. He had used ‘cause’ in reductive analyses before – if not so much in ‘meaning,’ due to Urmson’s counterexample involving ‘bribery,’ where ‘cause’ does not seem to do – but in his analysis of ‘intending’ for the British Academy. So at Oxford he promotes this THIRD causal condition as involving that, naturally enough, it is the rasoner’s BELIEF that demonstrably q follows from p, which CAUSES the reasoner TO BELIEVE (or more generally, accept) that the conclusion obtains. Grice is happy with that belief in the validity of the demonstration ‘populates’ the world of alethic beliefs, and does not concern with generalising that into a generic ‘acceptance.’ The word ‘rationalist’ is anathema at Oxford, because tutor after tutor has brainwashed their tutees that the distinction is ‘empiricst-rationalist’ and that at Oxford we are ‘empiricists.’ So Grice is really being ‘heretic’ here in the words of G. P. Baker. demonstratum: The Eng. word “reason” and the Fr.  word “raison” are both formed on the basis of Roman “reor,” to count or calculate, whence think, believe. The Roman verb translates the Grecian “λέγειν,” two of whose principal meanings it retains, but only two: count and think. The third principal meaning of the Grecian term, speak, discourse, which designates a third type of putting into relation and proportion, is rendered by other Roman series: “dicere” (originally cognate with ‘deixis,’ and so not necessarily ‘verbal’), “loquor,” “orationem habere” (the most ‘vocal’ one, as it relates to the ‘mouth,’ cf. ‘orality’) or “sermonem habere,” so that ultimately the Grecian λόγος is approached by Roman philosophers by means of a syntagm, “ratio et oratio,” reason and discourse. Each vernacular fragments the meaning of logos into a greater or lesser. Cf. ‘principium reddendae rationis.’ Rationality functions as a principle of the intelligibility of the world and history, particularly in Hegel. Then there’s The Partitions of Reason and Semantic diffractions. Although there is no language that retains under a single word all the meanings of logos except by bringing logos into the language in question, the distribution of these meanings is more or less close to Roman. For the classical Fr.  word “raison,” which maintains almost all the Roman meanings including the mathematical sense of proportion, as in “raison d’une série,” or “raison inverse,” a contemporary Fr. -G.  dictionary proposes the following terms: Vernunft, Verstand rational faculty. This example shows that the whole of the vocabulary is thus mobilized. Reason and faculties We can distinguish between two interfering systems. The first designates reason, identified with thought in general, in its relationship to a bodily and/or mental instance. The second situates reason in a hierarchy of faculties whose organization it determines. Regarding the first system, as it is expressed in various languages, where one will find studies of the main distortions, especially around the expressions of the Roman ‘anima.’ Philosophers especially emphasize the ways of designating reason and mind that appear to be the most irreducible from one language to another. Regarding the second system, and the partitions that do not coincide. For Grice, ‘to understand’ presupposes ‘rationality – not for Kant, who sticks with Verstand/Vernunft distinction. Ratio speculatum, praticatum. From Aristotle to Kant, two great domains of rationality have been distinguished: theory, or speculative reason, and practice. The lurality of meanings, each represented by one or more specific words. The first question, from the point of view of the difference of languages, is thus that of the breadth of the meaning of “reason” or its equivalents, and of the systems diffracting the meanings of logos and then of ratio. But another complex of problems immediately arises. The Roman “ratio” absorbs the meanings of other Grecian terms, such as νοῦς and διάνοια, which are also translated in other, more technical ways, such as intellectus; so that reason, in the sense of rationality, is a comprehensive term, whereas ‘reason’ in the sense of intellect or understanding is a singular and differentiated faculty. However, none of the comprehensive terms or systems of opposition coincides with those of another language, which are moreover changing. Then there’s Reason and Rationality: man, animal, god. Since Aristotle’s definition of man as an animal endowed with logos, which Roman writers rendered by “animal rationale” — omitting the discursive dimension—reason, or the logos, is a specific difference that defines man by his difference from other living beings and/or his participation in a divine or cosmic nature. Reason is opposed to madness understood as de-mentia. More broadly, reason is conceived in terms of difference from what does not belong to its domain and falls outside its immediate law, but which man may, in certain ways, share with other animals, such as sensation, passion, imagination, and possibly memory. Rationality and the principle of intelligibility. Rationality, defined by the logos, is connected with logic as the art of speaking and thinking, and with its founding principles. Les quodlibet cinq, six et sept. Ed.  by M. de Wulf and J. Hoffmans. Louvain, Belg.: Institut supérieur de Philosophie de l’Université, 191 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Elements of the Phil.  of Right. Tr.  H. Nisbet and ed.  by Allen Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge , . . Science of LogiTr.  V. Miller. London: Allen and Unwin, . . Werke. Ed.  by Eva Moldenhauer and Karl Markus Michel. 20 vols. FrankfuSuhrkamp, . Heidegger, Martin. The Basic Problems of Phenomenology. Tr.  Albert Hofstadter Bloomington: Indiana , . . Phenomenological Interpretation of Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason. Tr.  Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly. Bloomington: Indiana , . Hume, D. . A Treatise of Human Nature. Ed.  by D.  Fate Norton and Mary J. Norton. Oxford: Oxford , . Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Practical Reason. Translated and ed.  by Mary Gregor. Cambridge: Cambridge , . . Critique of Pure Reason. 2nd ed. Tr.  N. Kemp-Smith. : Macmillan, 193 Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm. Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Extraits des manuscrits. Ed.  by Louis Couturat. : Presses Universitaires de France, 190 Reprint. Hildesheim, Ger.: Olms, . . Philosophical Essays. Translated and ed.  by Roger Ariew and Dan Garber. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, . . Philosophical Papers and Letters. 2nd ed. Ed.  and Tr.  Leroy E. Loemker. Dordrecht, Neth.: D. Reidel, . . Die philosophischen Schriften. Ed.  by I. Gerhardt. 7 vols. Berlin, 187590. Reprint. Hildesheim, Ger.: Olms, . . Leibnizens mathematische Schriften. Ed.  by I. Gerhardt. 7 vols. Berlin, 18496 . Textes inédits d’après les manuscrits de la Bibliothèque provinciale de Hanovre. Ed.  by Gaston Gru2 vols. : Presses Universitaires de France, 194 Locke, J.. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Ed.  by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon, . Micraelius, J. . Lexicon philosophicum terminorum philosophis usitatorum. 2nd ed. Stettin, 166 Paulus, J.. Henri de Gand: Essai sur les tendances de sa métaphysique. : Vrin, 193 Schelling, Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph. Historisch-Kritische Ausgabe. Ed.  by Jörg Jantzen, T.  Buchheim, Jochem Hennigfeld, Wilhelm G. Jacobs, and Siegbert Peetz. 40 vols. StuttgaFrommann-Holzboog, . . Of the I as the Principle of Phil. , or On the Unconditional in Human Knowledge. In The Unconditional in Human Knowledge: Four Early Essays 17949 Translated with commentary by F. Marti. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell , . Spinoza, Baruch. Complete Works. With tr.s by Samuel Shirley. Ed.  by Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, . . Oper2nd ed. Ed.  by Gebhardt. 5 vols. Heidelberg: Carl Winters.

co-operatum: Grice is very right in noting that ‘helpfulness’ does not ‘equate’ cooperation. Correspondingly he changed the principle of conversational helpfulness into the principle of conversational co-operation. He also points that one has to distinguish between the general theisis that conversation is rational from the thesis that the particular form of rationality that conversation takes is cooperative rationality, which most libertarians take as ‘irrationality’ personified, almost! Grice is obsessed with this idea that ‘co-operation’ need not just be ‘conversational.’ Indeed, his way to justify a ‘rationalist’ approach is through analogy. If he can find ‘co-operative’ traits in behaviour other than ‘conversational,’ the greater the chance to generalise, and thus justify. The co-operation would be self-justifying. co-operation. The hyphen in Strawson and Wiggins (p. 520). Grice found ‘co-operative’ too Marxist, and would prefer ‘help,’ as in ‘mutual help.’ This element of ‘mutuality’ is necessary. And it is marked grammatical, with the FIRST person and the SECOND person. The third need NOT be a person – can be a dog (as in “Fido is shaggy”). The mututality is necessary in that the emissor’s intention involves the belief that his recipient is rational. You cannot co-operate with a rock. You cannot co-operate with a vegetal. You cannot cooperate with a non-rational animal. You can ONLY cooperate with a co-rational agent. Animal co-operation poses a nice side to the Griceian idea. Surely the stereotype is a member of species S cooperating with another specimen of the same species. But then there are great examples of ‘sym-biosis’: the crane that gets rid off the hippopotamus’s ticks. Is this cooperation? Is this intentional? If Grice thinks that there is a ‘mechanistically derivable’ explanation,, it isn’t. He did not necessarily buy ‘bio-sociological’ approaches. Which was a problem, because we don’t have much philosophical seriouis discourse on ‘cooperation’ at the general level Grice is aiming at. Except in ethics, which is biased. So it is no wonder that Grice had to rely on ‘meta-ethics’ to even conceptualise the field of cooperation: the maximin becomes a balance between a principle of conversational egoism and a principle of conversational altruism. He later found the egoism-tag as ‘understood.’ And his ‘altruism’ became ‘helpfulness,’ became ‘benevolence,’ and became ‘co-operation.’

copulatum: It was an Oxonian exercise to trace the ‘copula.’ “I’ve been working like a dog, should be sleeping like a log.” Where is the copula: Lennon is a dog-like worker – Lennon is a potential log-like sleeper.” Grice uses ‘copula’ in PPQ.  The term is sometimes used ambiguously, for ‘conjunctum.’ A conjunctive is called a copulative. But Grice obviously narrows down the use of copulatum to izz and hazz. He is having in mind Strawson.The formula does not allow for differences in tense and grammatical number; nor for the enormous class of * all '-sentences which do not contain, as their main verb, the verb * to be '. We might try to recast the sentences so that they at least fitted into one of the two patterns * All x is y ' or ' All x are y ' ; but the results would be, as English, often clumsy andt sometimes absurd. for Aristotle, 'Socrates is a man' is true "in virtue of his being that thing which constitutes existing for him (being which constitutes his mode of existence)," Hermann Weidemann, "In Defense of Aristotle's Theory of Predication," p. 84— only so long as that "being" be taken as an assertion of being per se. But Weidemann wants to take it merely copulatively. In "Prädikation," p. 1196, he says that when 'is' is used as tertium adiacens it has no meaning by itself, but merely signifies the connection of subject and predicate. Cf. his "Aristoteles über das isolierte Aussagenwort," p. 154. H. P. Grice, "Aristotle on the Multiplicity of Being," also rejects an existential reading of tertium adiacens and pushes for a copulative one. Cf. Alan Code, "Aristotle: Essence and Accident," pp. 414-7. Aristotle has connected the semantic multiplicity in the copula not with variation between predicates of one subject, but with variation between essential (per se)predications upon different (indeed categorially different) subjects (such ...eads me to wonder whether Aristotle may be maintaining not only that the copula exhibits semantic ...An extended treatment of my views about izzing and hazzing can be found in Alan.  A crucial ... on occasion admit catégorial variation in the sense of the copulative 'is', evidently is ... Aristotle has connected the semantic multiplicity in the copula not with variation ...with the copulative 'is'; so he rather strangely interprets the last remark. (1017a27-30) as alluding to semantic multiplicity in the copula as being. (supposedly) a consequence of semantic multiplicity in the existential 'is'. This interpretation seems difficult to defend. When Aristotle says that predicates sometimes say what a thing is, sometimes what is it like (its quality), sometimes how much it is (its quantity) and so on, he seems to be saying that if we consider the range of predicates which can be applied to some item, for example to a substance like Socrates or a cow, these predicates are categorically various, and so the uses of the copula in the ascription of these predicates will undergo corresponding variation"H. P. Grice brings the question he had considered with J. L. Austin and P. F. Strawson at Oxford about Aristotle’s categories.In “Categoriae,” Aristotle distinguishes two sorts of case of the application of word or phrase to a range of situations. In one sort of case, both the word and a single definition (account, “logos”) apply throughout that range. In the other sort of case, the word but no single definition applies through the range.These two sorts of case have a different nature. In the first case, the word is applied synonymously (of better as “sunonuma” – literally “sun-onuma”, cognomen). In the second case the word is applied homonymously (or better “homonuma”, or aequi-vocally, literally “homo-numa.”)Grice notes that a homonymous application has some sort of sub-division which Aristotle calls "paronymy" (“paronuma”), literally ‘para onuma.’To put it roughly, homonyms have multiple meanings – what Grice has as “semantic multiplicity.”Synonyms have one meaning or ONE SENSE, but apply to different kinds of thing.A paronym, such as ‘be,’ derives from other things of a different kind. Paronyms display a ‘UNIFIED semantic multiplicity,’ if that’s not too oxymoronic: how can the multiplicity be unified while remaining a multiplicity? Aristotle states, confusingly, that "being is said in many ways". As Grice notes, ‘good’ (agathon) also is a paronym that displays unified semantic multiplicity.In Nichomachean Ethics, even more confusingly, Aristotle says that "good is said in as many ways as being". He doesn’t number the ways.So the main goal for Grice is to answer the question: If, as Aristotle suggests, at least some expressions connected with the notion of "being" exhibit semantic multiplicity, of which expressions is the suggestion true? Grice faces the question of existential being and Semantic Multiplicity. Grice stresses that Semantic Multiplicity of  "be" is not only the case of it interpretation. Other words he wants to know in what way of interpretation of this word the philosophers can detect the SM. Generally speaking there are four possible interpretations of "being": First, "be" is taken to mean "exist.”Second, "be" is taken as a copula in a predication statement.Third, "be" is taken for expressing the identity.Fourth, "Being" is considered to be a noun (equivalent to ‘object' or ‘entity') – subjectification, category shift: “Smith’s being tall suggests he is an athlete.” (cfr. A. G. N. Flew on the ‘rubbish’ that adding ‘the’ to ‘self’ results in – contra J. R. Jones). Philosophers have some problems for this kind of theory with separating interpretations from each other. It is natural for thinkers to unite the first and the fourth. The object or entity should be the things which already exist. So the SM would attach to such a noun as "entity" if, and only if, it also attaches to the word "exist". Furthermore, it seems to be a good idea to unite the first and the third. In some ways theorist can paraphrase the word "exist" in the terms of self-identity. Grice gives an example: “Julius Caesar exists if and only if Julius Caesar is identical for Julius Caesar.” Cf. Grice on ‘relative identity.’So the philosophers should investigate SM in two possible interpretations – when "be" is understood as "exist" and when "be" is understood as copula. From Aristotle's point of view ‘being’ is predicated of everything. From this statement, Grice draws the conclusion that "exist" can apply to every thing, even a square circle.This word should signify a plurality of universals and exhibits semantic multiplicity. But Grice continue his analyses and tries to show, that "exist" has not merely SM, but UNIFIED semantic multiplicity. God forbid that he breaks M. O. R., Modifed Occam’s Razor – Semantic multiplicies are not to be multiplied unificatory necessity.”In “Metaphysics,” Aristotle says that whatever things are signified by the "forms of predication". Philosophers understood the forms of predication (praedicabilium, praedicamentum) as a category. So in this way "being" has as many significations as there are forms of predication. "Be" in this case indicates what a thing is, what is like or how much it is and ctr. And no reasons to make a difference between two utterances like "man walks (flourishes)" and "the man is walking (flourishing)" – cfr. Strawson on no need to have ‘be’ explicitly in the surface form, which render some utterances absurd. Grice says that it is not a problem with interpretation of verb-forms like ‘walks' and ‘flourishes' while we can replace them by expression in a canonical form like ‘is walking' and ‘is flourishing'. Aristotle names them as canonical in form within the multiplicity of use of "be" because ‘is’ is not existential, but copulative.Cf. Descartes, I think therefore I am – I am a res cogitans, ergo I am a res. "When Aristotle says that predicates sometimes say what a thing is, sometimes what is it like (its quality), sometimes how much it is (its quantity) and so on, he seems to be saying that, if we consider the range of predicates which can be applied to some item, for example to a substance like Socrates or a cow, these predicates are categorically various, and so the uses of the copula in the ascription of these predicates will undergo corresponding variation" It means that, from Aristotle's point of view, "Socrates is F" is not an essential predication, where "F" shows the item in the category C. So the logical form of the proposition “Socrates is F” is understood as "Socrates has something which is (C) F" where is (C) represent essential connection to category C. In conclusion it can be said that the copula is a matter of the logical nature of constant connection expressed by "has" and a categorical variant relation expressed by essential "is". So we have both types of interpretation: as existence and as a copula. (Our gratitude to P. A.  Sobolevsky). ases of ''Unified Semantic Multiplicity'' (USM). Prominent among examples of USM is the application of the word 'be'; according to. Aristotle, “being is said in ... Aristotle and the alleged multiplicity of being (or something). Grice is  all for focal unity. Or, to echo Jones, if there is semantic multiplicity  (homonymy), it is in the end UNIFIED semantic multiplicity (paronymy). Or  something.

corpus: Grice would not have gone to Oxford had his talent not been in the classics, Greek and Latin. As a Midlander, he was sent to Corpus. At the time, most of Oxford was oriented towards the classics, or Lit. Hum. (Philosophia). At some point, each college attained some stereotypical fame, which Grice detested (“Corpus is for classicists”). By this time, Grice, after a short stay at Merton, accepted the fellowship at St. John’s, which was “a different animal.” In them days, there were only two tutorial fellows in philosophy, Scots Mabbott, and English Grice. But Grice also was “University Lecturer in Philosophy,” which meant he delivered seminars for tutees all over Oxford. St. John’s keeps a record of all the tutees by Grice. They include, alphabetically, a few good names. Why is Corpus so special? Find out! History of “Corpus Christi.” Cf. St. John’s. Cf. Merton. Each should have an entry. Corpus is Grice’s alma mater – so crucial. Hardieian: you only have one tutor in your life, and Grice’s was Hardie. So an exploration on Hardie may be in order. Grice hastens to add that he only learned ‘form,’ not matter, from Hardie, but the ethical and Aristotelian approach he also admitted.

cotton onto the implicatum: this is not cognate with the plant. It’s Welsh, rather.Strawson’s and Wiggins’s example of the ‘suggestio falsi’ – or alternative to Grice’s tutee example. Since Strawson and Wiggins are presenting the thing to the ultra-prestigious British Academy, they thought a ‘tutee’ example would not be prestigious enough. So they have two philosophers, Strawson and Grice, talking about a third party, another philosopher, well known by his mood outbursts. They are assessing the third party’s philosophical abilities at their London club. Strawson volunteers: “And Smith?”. Grice responds: “If he had a more angelic temperament…” Strawson, “like a fool, I rushed in – Strawson Wiggins p. 520. The angelic temperament. To like someone or something; to view someone or something favorably. ... After we explained our plan again, the rest of the group seemed to cotton onto it. 2. To begin to understand something. Has nothing to do with cotton 1560s, "to prosper, succeed;" of things, "to agree, suit, fit," a word of uncertain origin. Perhaps from Welsh cytuno "consent, agree;" but perhaps rather a metaphor from cloth-finishing and thus from cotton (n.). Hensleigh Wedgwood compares cot "a fleece of wool matted together." Meaning "become closely or intimately associated (with)," is from 1805 via the sense of "to get along together" (of persons), attested from c. 1600. Related: Cottoned; cottoning.

credibility: While Grice uses ‘probability’ as the correlatum of desirability, he suggests ‘credibility’ is a better choice. It relates to the ‘creditum.’ Now, what is the generic for ‘trust’ when it comes to the creditum and the desideratum? An indicative utterance expresses a belief. The utterer is candid if he holds that belief. “Candid” applies to imperative utterances which express genuine desires and notably the emissor’s intention that his recipient will form a ‘desideratum.’  Following Jeffrey and Davidson, respectively, Grice uses ‘desirability’ and ‘probability,’ but sometimes ‘credibibility,’ realizing that ‘credibility’ is more symmetrical with ‘desirability’ than ‘probability’ is. Urmson had explored this in “Parenthetical verbs.” Urmson co-relates, ‘certaintly’ with ‘know’ and ‘probably’ with ‘believe.’ But Urmson adds four further adverbs: “knowingly,” “unknowingly,” “believably,” and “unbelievably.” Urmson also includes three more: “uncredibly,” in variation with “incredibly,” and ‘credibly.” The keyword should be ‘credibility.’

creditum: The Romans were good at this. Notably in negative contexts. They distinguished between an emissor being fallax and being mendax. It all has to do with ‘creditum.’ “Creditum’ is vero, more or less along correspondence-theoretical lines. Used by Grice for the doxastic equivalent of the buletic or desideratum. A creditum is an implicatum, as Grice defines the implicatum of the content that an addresse has to assume the utterer BELIEVES to deem him rational. The ‘creditum’-condition is essential for Grice in his ‘exhibitive’ account to the communication. By uttering “Smoke!”, U means that there is some if the utterer intends that his addressee BELIEVE that he, the utterer, is in a state of soul which has the propositional complex there is smoke. It is worth noting that BELIEF is not needed for the immediate state of the utterer’s soul: this can always be either a desire or a belief. But a belief is REQUIRED as the immediate (if not ultimate) response intended by the utterer that his addressee adapt. It is curious that given the primacy that Grice held of the desirability over the credibility that many of his conversational maxims are formulated as imperatives aimed at matters of belief, conditions and value of credibility, probability and adequate evidence. In the cases where Grice emphasizes ‘information,’ which one would associate with ‘belief,’ this association may be dropped provided the exhibitive account: you can always influence or be influenced by others in the institution of a common decision provided you give and receive the optimal information, or rather, provided the conversationalists assume that they are engaged in a MAXIMAL exchange of information. That ‘information’ does not necessarily apply to ‘belief’ is obvious in how complicated an order can get, “Get me a bottle”. “Is that all?” “No, get me a bottle and make sure that it is of French wine, and add something to drink the wine with, and drive careful, and give my love to Rosie.” No belief is explicitly transmitted, yet the order seems informative enough. Grice sometimes does use ‘informative’ in a strict context involving credibility. He divides the mode of credibility into informational (when addressed to others) and indicative (when addressed to self), for in a self-addressed utterance such as, “I am being silly,” one cannot intend to inform oneself of something one already knows!

defeasibility. Strawson Wiggins ‘somehwere in the kitchen,’ ‘in one of the dining-room cupboards’ unless some feature of the context defeats the implication, there is an implicatum to the effect that the emissor cannot make a ‘stronger’ move by Grice’s principle of conversational fortitude (“Be ‘a fortiori’”).  Cf. G. P. Baker on H. L. A. Hart. All very Oxonian. Cf. R. Hall, Oxonian, on ‘Excluders.’ For Strawson and Wiggins that a principle holds ‘generally, ceteris paribus, is a condition for the existence of conversation, or of a good conversation. Defeasibility is a sign of the freedom of the will. The communicators can always opt out. Not a salivating dog. Note that defeasibility does not apply just to the implicatum. Since probabilistic demonstrate are uncertain, there is an element of defeasibility in the EXplicatum of a probabilistic utterance. Levinson’s quote, “Probability, Defeasibility, and Mode Operators.”

defensible – H. P. Grice, “Conceptual analysis and the defensible province of philosophy.” Grice uses the ‘territorial’ province, and the further implicature is that conceptual analysis as the province of philosophy is a defensible one. Grice thinks it is.

definitum: Grice lists ‘the’ in his list of communicative devices. He was interested in the iota operator. After Sluga, he knew there were problems here. He proposed a quantificational approach alla Whitehead and Russell, indeed a Whitehead and Russellian expansion in three clauses, with identity, involved. Why wasn’t Russell not involved with the ‘indefinite’. One would think because that’s rendered already by (Ex), ‘some (at least one)’.  Russell’s interest in definitum is not philosophical. His background was mathematics, rather --. Grice was obsessed with ‘aspects’ in verbs. There’s the ‘imperfect’ and the ‘perfect.’ These translate Aristotle’s ‘teleos’ and ‘ateleos.’ But why the change from “factum” to “fectum”? So it’s better to turn to ‘definitum,’ and ‘indefinitum, as better paraphrases of Aristotle’s jargon – keeping in mind we are talking of his ‘teleos’ and ‘ateleos. Aristotle and telos. In the Met. Y.1048b1835, Aristotle discusses the definition of an action πϱᾶξις. He distinguishes two kinds of activities: kinêseis ϰινήσεις and energeiai ἐνέϱγειαι: Only that movement in which the end is present is an action. E.g., at the same time we are v.ing and have v.n ὁϱᾷ ἅμα, are understanding and have understood φϱονεῖ, are thinking and have thought noei kai nenoêken νοεῖ ϰαὶ νενόηϰεν when it is not true that at the same time we are learning and have learnt ou manthanei kai memathêken οὐ μανθάνει ϰαὶ μεμάθηϰεν, or are being cured and have been cured oud’ hugiazetai kai hugiastai οὐδ᾿ ὑγιάζεται ϰαὶ ὑγίασται. At the same time we are living well and have lived well εὖ ζῇ ϰαὶ εὖ ἔζηϰεν ἅμα, and are happy and have been happy εὐδαιμονεῖ ϰαὶ εὐδαιμόνηϰεν. Of these processes, then, we must call the one set movements ϰινήσεις, and the other actualities energeiai ἐνέϱγειαι. We v. that the distinctive properties of these two categories of verbs are provided by relations of inference and semantic compatibility between the form of the present and the form of the perfect. In the case of energeiai, there is a relation of inference between the present and the perfect, in the sense that when someone says I v. we can infer I have v.n. There is also a relation of semantic compatibility since one can very well say I have v.n and continue to v.. Thus the two forms—the present and the perfect— are verifiable at the same time ἅμα, simultaneously. On the other hand, in the case of kinêseis, the present and the perfect are not verifiable at the same time. In fact, when someone says I am building a house, we cannot infer I have built a house, at least in the sense in which the house is finished. In addition, once the house is finished, one is no longer constructing it, which means that there is a semantic incompatibility between the present and the perfect. τέλος, which means both complete action, that is, end, and limit in competition with πέϱας, plays a crucial role in this opposition. In the category of energeiai, we have actions proper, that is, activities that are complete τέλεια because they have an immanent finality ἐνυπάϱχει τὸ τέλος. In the category of kinêseis, we have imperfect activities ἀτελείς that do not carry their own end within themselves but are transitive and aim at realizing something. Thus activities having an external goal that is at the same time a limit peras do not carry their own goal telos within themselves; they are directed toward a goal but this goal is not attained during the activity, but is realized at the end of the activity.  And history repeated itself, in the same terms, regarding Slavic languages, with on the one hand the words perfective and imperfective, modeled on the Roman opposition and imported to describe an opposition in which lexicon and grammar are truly interwoven since it is a question of categories of verbs, which determine the whole organization of conjugation, and on the other hand the Russian words that are used to characterize the same categories of verbs, and that signify the accomplished and the unaccomplished. In the terminological imbroglio, we can once again v. the effects of a confusion connected with the inability to acknowledge the autonomy of lexical aspect, or, in the particular case of Slavic languages, the difficulty of isoRomang the aspectual dimension in the general system of the language. Nevertheless, the same questions, that of the telos and that of accomplishment, are at the foundation of the two aspectual dimensions. They are even so prominent that, alongside the heterogeneous inventory from which we began, we also find, and almost simultaneously in the aspectual tradition, a leveling of all differences in favor of two categories that are supposed to be the categories par excellence of grammatical aspect: the perfective on the one hand, and the imperfective on the other. However, there is also the continuing competition of the perfect, another tr. of the same word, perfectum, designating a category that is not exactly the same as that of the perfective, and which is, for its part, always a grammatical category, never a lexical category: one speaks of perfect to designate compound tenses in G. ic languages, e. g. , of the type I have received  as opposed to I received, which corresponds to the idea that the telos is not only achieved, but transcended in the constitution of a fixed state, given as the result of the completion of the process. Two, or three, grammatical categories that are the same and not the same as the two, three, or four lexical categories. It is in the name of these categories, and literally behind their name, that the aspectual descriptions succeeded in being applicable to all languages, confRomang all the imperfects of all languages and also the Eng. progressive and the Russian imperfective, all the aorists in all languages, and aligning perfects, perfectives, the Eng. perfect, the G.  Perfekt, the Roman perfectum and the Grecian perfect. The facts are different, but the words, and the recurrence of a problematics that v.ms invariable, are too strong. Although it is a matter of conjugations, the lexicon and the relation to ontological questions are too influential. The word imperfectum was invented, we v. a hesitation that is precisely the one that causes a problem here, between imperfectum and infectum a nonachieved finality, an absence of finality. The important point is that the whole history of aspectual terminology is constituted by such exchanges. The invention of the words perfectum and imperfectum itself proceeds from an enterprise of tr., in which it is a question of taking as a model, or rephrasing, the Grecian grammarians’ opposition between suntelikos συντελιϰός and non-suntelikos. However, the difference between the two terminologies is noticeable. A supine past participle, -fectum, has replaced telikos, and hence telos, thereby reintroducing, if not tense was tense really involved in that past participle?, at least the achievement of an act, and consequently merges with the question of the accomplished. In this operation, the Stoics’ opposition between suntelikos which would thus designate the choice of perfects or imperfects and παϱατατιϰός the extensive, in which the question of the telos is not involved was made symmetrical, introducing into aspectual terminology a binariness from which we have never recovered. And this symmetricalization, which sought to describe the organization of a conjugation, was then modeled on the distinction introduced by Aristotle between tτέλειος and aἀτελής, which was not grammatical but lexical. This resulted in a new confusion that is not without foundation because it was already implicit in the montage constructed by the Grecian philosophers, with on the one hand the telos used by Aristotle to differentiate types of process, and on the other the same telos used by the Stoics to structure conjugation. exist in G. , is said to be primarily a matter of discursive construction with the imparfait forming the background of a narration, and the past tenses forming the foreground of what develops and occurs. More recently, this area has been dominated by theories that situate aspect in a theory of discursive representations cf. Kamp’s discourse representation theory, and try to reduce it to a matter of discursive organization: thus the models currently most discussed make the imparfait an anaphoric mark that repeats an element of the context instead of constructing an independent referent. Once again the relations are inextricably confused: the types of discourse clearly have particular aspectual properties we have already v.n this in connection with aoristic utterances that structure both aspect and tense differently, and yet all or almost all aspectual forms can appear anywhere, in all or almost all types of discursive contexts. Thus we have foregrounded imparfaits, which have been recorded and are sometimes called narrative imparfaits— e. g. , in an utterance like Trois jours après, il mourait Three days later, he was dying, where it is a question of narrating a prominent event, and where the distinction between imparfait and passé simple becomes more difficult to evaluate. We also find passé composés in narratives, where they compete with the passé simple: that is why many analysts of the language consider the passé simple an archaic form that is being abandoned in favor of the passé composé. The difficulty is clear: it is hard to attach a given formal procedure to a given enunciative structuration, not only because enunciative structures are supposed to be compatible with several aspectual values, but first of all because the formal procedures themselves are all, more or less broadly, polysemous, their value depending precisely on the context and thus on the enunciative structure in which they are situated. Here again, this is commonplace: polysemy is everywhere in languages. But in this case it affects aspect: it consists precisely in running through aspectual oppositions, the very ones that are also supposed to be associated with some aspectual marker. The case of narrative uses of the imparfait v.ms to indicate that the imparfait can have different aspectual values, of which some are more or less apparently perfective. The narrative passé composés for instance, Il s’est levé et il est sorti He got up and went out describe the process in its advent and thus do not have the same aspectual properties as those that appear in utterances describing the state resulting from the process e.g., Désolé, en ce moment il est sorti Sorry, he left just now. Not to mention the presents, which are highly polysemous in many languages and which, depending on the language, therefore occupy a more or less extensive aspectual terrain. We are obliged to note that aspect is at least partially independent of formal procedures, that it also plays a role elsewhere, in particular, in the enunciative configuration. teleology: the objectivum. Grice speaks of the objective as a maxim. This is very Latinate. So if the maxim is an objective, the goal is the objective, or objectivum. Meaning "goal, aim" (1881) is from military term objective point (1852), reflecting a sense evolution in French. This is an expansion on the desideratum. Cf. ‘desirable,’ and ‘desirability,’ and ‘end.’ Grice feels like introducing goal-oriented conceptual machinery. In a later stage of his career he ensured that this machinery be seen as NOT mechanistically derivable. Which is odd seeing that in the ‘progression’ of the ‘soul,’ he allows for talk of adaptiveness and survival which suggest a mechanist explanation. If an agent has a desideratum that means that, to echo Bennett, A displays a goal-oriented behaviour, where the goal is the ‘telos.’ Smoke cannot ‘mean’ fire, because smoke doesn’t really behave in a goal-oriented matter. Grice does play with the idea of finality in nature, because that would allow him to justify the objectivity of his system. how does soul originate from matter? Does the vegetal soul have a telos. Purposive-behaviour is obvious in plants (phototropism). If it is present in the vegetal soul, it is present in the animal soul. If it is present in the animal soul, it is present in the rational soul. With each stage, alla Hartmann, there are distinctions in the specification of the telos. Grice could be more continental than Scheler! Grices métier. Unity of science was a very New-World expression that Grice did not quite buy. Grice was brought up in a world, the Old World, indeed, as he calls it in his Proem to the Locke lectures, of Snows two cultures. At the time of Grices philosophising, philosophers such as Winch (who indeed quotes fro Grice) were contesting the idea that science is unitary, when it comes to the explanation of rational behaviour. Since a philosophical approach to the explanation of rational behaviour, including conversational behaviour (to account for the conversational implicata) is his priority, Grice needs to distinguish himself from those who propose a unified science, which Grice regards as eliminationist and reductionist. Grice is ambivalent about science and also playful (philosophia regina scientiarum). Grice seems to presuppose, or implicate, that, since there is the devil of scientism, science cannot get at teleology. The devil is in the physiological details, which are irrelevant. The language Grice uses to describe his Ps as goal-oriented, aimed at survival and reproduction, seems teleological and somewhat scientific, though. But he means that ironically! As the scholastics use it, teleology is a science, the science of telos, or finality (cf. Aristotle on telos aitia, causa finalis. The unity of science is threatened by teleology, and vice versa. Unified science seeks for a mechanistically derivable teleology. But Grices sympathies lie for detached finality. Grice is obsessed with the Greek idea of a telos, as slightly overused by Aristotle. Grice thinks that some actions are for their own sake. What is the telos of Oscar Wilde? Can we speak of Oscar Wilde’s métier? If a tiger is to tigerise, a human is to humanise, and a person is to personise. Grice thought that teleology is a key philosophical way to contest mechanism, so popular in The New World. Strictly, and Grice knew this, teleology is constituted as a discipline. One term that Cicero was unable to translate! For the philosopher, teleology is that part of philosophy that studies the realm of the telos. Informally, teleological is opposed to mechanistic. Grice is interested in the mechanism/teleology debate, indeed jumps into it, with a goal in mind! Grice finds some New-World philosophers too mechanistic-oriented, in contrast with the more two-culture atmosphere he was familiar with at Oxford! Code is the Aristotelian, and he and Grice are especially concerned in the idea of causa finalis. For Grice only detached finality poses a threat to Mechanism, as it should! Axiological objectivity is possible only given finality or purpose in Nature, the admissibility of a final cause. Refs.: There are specific essays on ‘teleology,’ ‘final cause,’ and ‘finality,’ the The Grice Papers. Some of the material published in “Reply to Richards” (repr. in “Conception”) and “Actions and events,” The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.

demonstratum: Cf. illatum – In act of communication, Grice’s focus is on the reasoning on the emissor’s part. This is end-means. The conversational moves is the most effectively designed move. The potential uptake by the emissee is also taken into the consideration by the emissor. And actual uptake is not of philosophical importance. hen Grice tried to conceptualise what ‘communicating’ and ‘smoke means fire’ have in common he came with the idea of ‘consequentia,’ as a dyadic relation that, eventually, will become triadic, with the missor and the missee brought into the bargain. “Look that smoke, there must be fire somewhere’ – “By that handwave, he meant that he was about to leave me.” In any case, Grice’s arriving at ‘consequentia’ is exactly Hobbes’s idea in “Computatio.’ And ‘con-sequentia’ involves a bit of ‘demonstratio.’ One thing follows the other. One thing YIELDS the other. The link may be causal (smoke means fire) or ‘communicative’). ‘Rationality’ is one of those words Austin forbids to use. Grice would venture with ‘reason,’ and better, ‘reasons’ to make it countable, and good for botanising. Only in the New World, and when he started to get input from non-philosophers, did Grice explore ‘rationality’ itself. Oxonians philosophers take it for granted, and do not have to philosophise about it. Especially those who belong to Grice’s play group of ‘ordinary-language’ philosophers! Oxonian philosophers will quote from the Locke version! Obviously, while each of the four lectures credits their own entry below, it may do to reflect on Grices overall aim. Grice structures the lectures in the form of a philosophical dialogue with his audience. The first lecture is intended to provide a bit of linguistic botanising for reasonable, and rational. In later lectures, Grice tackles reason qua noun. The remaining lectures are meant to explore what he calls the Aequi-vocality thesis: must has only one Fregeian that crosses what he calls the buletic-doxastic divide. He is especially concerned  ‒ this being the Kant lectures  ‒ with Kants attempt to reduce the categorical imperative to a counsel of prudence (Ratschlag der Klugheit), where Kants prudence is Klugheit, versus skill, as in rule of skill, and even if Kant defines Klugheit as a skill to attain what is good for oneself  ‒ itself divided into privatKlugheit and Weltklugheit. Kant re-introduces the Aristotelian idea of eudaimonia. While a further lecture on happiness as the pursuit of a system of ends is NOT strictly part of the either the Kant or the Locke lectures, it relates, since eudaemonia may be regarded as the goal involved in the relevant imperative.  “Aspects”, Clarendon, Stanford, The Kant memorial Lectures, “Aspects,” Clarendon, Some aspects of reason, Stanford; reason, reasoning, reasons. The lectures were also delivered as the Locke lectures. Grice is concerned with the reduction of the categorical imperative to the hypothetical or suppositional imperative. His main thesis he calls the æqui-vocality thesis: must has one unique or singular sense, that crosses the buletic-boulomaic/doxastic divide. “Aspects,” Clarendon, Grice, “Aspects, Clarendon, Locke lecture notes: reason. On “Aspects”. Including extensive language botany on rational, reasonable, and indeed reason (justificatory, explanatory, and mixed). At this point, Grice notes that linguistic botany is indispensable towards the construction of a more systematic explanatory theory. It is an exploration of a range of uses of reason that leads him to his Aequi-vocality thesis that must has only one sense; also ‘Aspects of reason and reasoning,’ in Grice, “Aspects,” Clarendon, the Locke lectures, the Kant lectures, Stanford, reason, happiness. While Locke hardly mentions reason, his friend Burthogge does, and profusely! It was slightly ironic that Grice had delivered these lectures as the Rationalist Kant lectures at Stanford. He was honoured to be invited to Oxford. Officially, to be a Locke lecture you have to be *visiting* Oxford. While Grice was a fellow of St. Johns, he was still most welcome to give his set of lectures on reasoning at the Sub-Faculty of Philosophy. He quotes very many authors, including Locke! In his proemium, Grice notes that while he was rejected the Locke scholarship back in the day, he was extremely happy to be under Lockes ægis now! When preparing for his second lecture, he had occasion to revise some earlier drafts dated pretty early, on reasons, Grice, “Aspects,” Clarendon, reason, reasons. Linguistic analysis on justificatory, explanatory and mixed uses of reason. While Grice knows that the basic use of reason is qua verb (reasoner reasons from premise p to conclusion c), he spends some time in exploring reason as noun. Grice found it a bit of a roundabout way to approach rationality. However, his distinction between justificatory and explanatory reason is built upon his linguistic botany on the use of reason qua noun. Explanatory reason seems more basic for Grice than justificatory reason. Explanatory reason explains the behaviour of a rational agent. Grice is aware of Freud and his rationalizations. An agent may invoke some reason for his acting which is not legitimate. An agent may convince himself that he wants to move to Bournemouth because of the weather; when in fact, his reason to move to Bournemouth is to be closer to Cowes and join the yacht club there. Grice loved an enthymeme. Grices enthymeme. Grice, the implicit reasoner! As the title of the lecture implies, Grice takes the verb, to reason, as conceptually prior. A reasoner reasons, briefly, from a premise to a conclusion. There are types of reason: flat reason and gradual reason. He famously reports Shropshire, another tutee with Hardie, and his proof on the immortality of the human soul. Grice makes some remarks on akrasia as key, too. The first lecture is then dedicated to an elucidation, and indeed attempt at a conceptual analysis in terms of intentions and doxastic conditions reasoner R intends that premise P yields conclusion C and believes his intention will cause his entertaining of the conclusion from his entertaining the premise. One example of particular interest for a study of the use of conversational reason in Grice is that of the connection between implicatum and reasoning. Grice entitles the sub-section of the lecture as Too good to be reasoning, which is of course a joke. Cf. too much love will kill you, and Theres no such thing as too much of a good thing (Shakespeare, As you like it). Grice notes: I have so far been considering difficulties which may arise from the attempt to find, for all cases of actual reasoning, reconstructions of sequences of utterances or explicit thoughts which the reasoner might plausibly be supposed to think of as conforming to some set of canonical patterns of inference. Grice then turns to a different class of examples, with regard to which the problem is not that it is difficult to know how to connect them with canonical patterns, but rather that it is only too easy (or shall I say trivial) to make the connection. Like some children (not many), some cases of reasoning are too well behaved for their own good. Suppose someone says to Grice, and It is very interesting that Grice gives conversational examples. Jack has arrived, Grice replies, I conclude from that that Jack has arrived. Or he says Jack has arrived AND Jill has *also* arrived, And Grice replies, I conclude that Jill has arrived.(via Gentzens conjunction-elimination). Or he says, My wife is at home. And Grice replies, I reason from that that someone (viz. your wife) is at home. Is there not something very strange about the presence in my three replies of the verb conclude (in example I and II) and the verb reason (in the third example)? misleading, but doxastically fine, professor! It is true, of course, that if instead of my first reply I had said (vii) vii. So Jack has arrived, has he? the strangeness would have been removed. But here so serves not to indicate that an inference is being made, but rather as part of a not that otiose way of expressing surprise. One might just as well have said (viii). viii. Well, fancy that! Now, having spent a sizeable part of his life exploiting it, Grice is not unaware of the truly fine distinction between a statements being false (or axiologically satisfactory), and its being true (or axiologically satisfactory) but otherwise conversationally or pragmatically misleading or inappropriate or pointless, and, on that account and by such a fine distinction, a statement, or an utterance, or conversational move which it would be improper (in terms of the reasonable/rational principle of conversational helfpulness) in one way or another, to make. It is worth considering Grices reaction to his own distinction. Entailment is in sight! But Grice does not find himself lured by the idea of using that distinction here! Because Moores entailment, rather than Grices implicatum is entailed. Or because explicatu, rather than implicatum is involved. Suppose, again, that I were to break off the chapter at this point, and switch suddenly to this argument. ix. I have two hands (here is one hand and here is another). If had three more hands, I would have five. If I were to have double that number I would have ten, and if four of them were removed six would remain. So I would have four more hands than I have now. Is one happy to describe this performance as reasoning? Depends whos one and whats happy!? There is, however, little doubt that I have produced a canonically acceptable chain of statements. So surely that is reasoning, if only conversationally misleadingly called so. Or suppose that, instead of writing in my customary free and easy style, I had framed my remarks (or at least the argumentative portions of my remarks) as a verbal realization, so to speak, of sequences of steps in strict conformity with the rules of a natural-deduction system of first-order predicate logic. I give, that is to say, an updated analogue of a medieval disputation. Implicature. Gentzen is Ockham. Would those brave souls who continued to read be likely to think of my performance as the production of reasoning, or would they rather think of it as a crazy formalisation of reasoning conducted at some previous time? Depends on crazy or formalisation. One is reminded of Grice telling Strawson, If you cannot formalise, dont say it; Strawson: Oh, no! If I can formalise it, I shant say it! The points suggested by this stream of rhetorical questions may be summarized as follows. Whether the samples presented FAIL to achieve the title of reasoning, and thus be deemed reasoning, or whether the samples achieve the title, as we may figuratively put it, by the skin of their teeth, perhaps does not very greatly matter. For whichever way it is, the samples seem to offend against something (different things in different cases, Im sure) very central to our conception of reasoning. So central that Moore would call it entailment! A mechanical application of a ground rule of inference, or a concatenation thereof, is reluctantly (if at all) called reasoning. Such a mechanical application may perhaps legitimately enter into (i.e. form individual steps in) authentic reasonings, but they are not themselves reasonings, nor is a string of them. There is a demand that a reasoner should be, to a greater or lesser degree, the author of his reasonings. Parroted sequences are not reasonings when parroted, though the very same sequences might be reasoning if not parroted. Ped sequences are another matter. Some of the examples Grice gives are deficient because they are aimless or pointless. Reasoning is characteristically addressed to this or that problem: a small problem, a large problem, a problem within a problem, a clear problem, a hazy problem, a practical problem, an intellectual problem; but a problem! A mere flow of ideas minimally qualifies (or can be deemed) as reasoning, even if it happens to be logically respectable. But if it is directed, or even monitored (with intervention should it go astray, not only into fallacy or mistake, but also into such things as conversational irrelevance or otiosity!), that is another matter! Finicky over-elaboration of intervening steps is frowned upon, and in extreme cases runs the risk of forfeiting the title of reasoning. In conversation, such over-elaboration will offend against this or that conversational maxim, against (presumably) some suitably formulated maxim conjoining informativeness. As Grice noted with regard to ‘That pillar box seems red to me.’ That would be baffling if the addressee fails to detect the communication-point. An utterance is supposed to inform, and what is the above meant to inform its addressee? In thought, it will be branded as pedantry or neurotic caution. If a distinction between brooding and conversing is to be made! At first sight, perhaps, one would have been inclined to say that greater rather than lesser explicitnessness is a merit. Not that inexplicitness, or implicatum-status, as it were ‒ is bad, but that, other things being equal, the more explicitness the better. But now it looks as if proper explicitness (or explicatum-status) is an Aristotelian mean, or mesotes, and it would be good some time to enquire what determines where that mean lies. The burden of the foregoing observations seems to me to be that the provisional account of reasoning, which has been before us, leaves out something which is crucially important. What it leaves out is the conception of reasoning, as I like to see conversation, as a purposive activity, as something with goals and purposes. The account or picture leaves out, in short, the connection of reasoning with the will! Moreover, once we avail ourselves of the great family of additional ideas which the importation of this conception would give us, we shall be able to deal with the quandary which I laid before you a few minutes ago. For we could say e.g. that R reasons (informally) from p to c just in case R thinks that p and intends that, in thinking c, he should be thinking something which would be the conclusion of a formally valid argument the premisses of which are a supplementation of p. This will differ from merely thinking that there exists some formally valid supplementation of a transition from p to c, which I felt inclined NOT to count as (or deem) reasoning. I have some hopes that this appeal to the purposiveness or goal-oriented character of authentic reasoning or good reasoning might be sufficient to dispose of the quandary on which I have directed it. But I am by no means entirely confident that this is the case, and so I offer a second possible method of handling the quandary, one to which I shall return later when I shall attempt to place it in a larger context. We have available to us (let us suppose) what I might call a hard way of making inferential moves. We in fact employ this laborious, step-by-step procedure at least when we are in difficulties, when the course is not clear, when we have an awkward (or philosophical) audience, and so forth. An inferential judgement, however, is a normally desirable undertaking for us only because of its actual or hoped for destinations, and is therefore not desirable for its own sake (a respect in which, possibly, it may differ from an inferential capacity). Following the hard way consumes time and energy. These are in limited supply and it would, therefore, be desirable if occasions for employing the hard way were minimized. A substitute for the hard way, the quick way, which is made possible by habituation and intention, is available to us, and the capacity for it (which is sometimes called intelligence, and is known to be variable in degree) is a desirable quality. The possibility of making a good inferential step (there being one to be made), together with such items as a particular inferers reputation for inferential ability, may determine whether on a particular occasion we suppose a particular transition to be inferential (and so to be a case of reasoning) or not. On this account, it is not essential that there should be a single supplementation of an informal reasoning which is supposed to be what is overtly in the inferers mind, though quite often there may be special reasons for supposing this to be the case. So Botvinnik is properly credited with a case of reasoning, while Shropshire is not. Drawing from his recollections of an earlier linguistic botany on reason. Grice distinguishes between justificatory reason and explanatory reason. There is a special case of mixed reason, explanatory-cum-justificatory. The lecture can be seen as the way an exercise that Austin took as taxonomic can lead to explanatory adequacy, too! Bennett is an excellent correspondent. He holds a very interesting philosophical correspondence with Hare. This is just one f. with Grices correspondence with Bennett. Oxford don, Christchurh, NZ-born Bennett, of Magdalen, B. Phil. Oxon. Bennett has an essay on the interpretation of a formal system under Austin. It is interesting that Bennett was led to consider the interpretation of a formal system under Austins Play Group. Bennett attends Grices seminars. He is my favourite philosopher. Bennett quotes Grice in his Linguistic behaviour. In return, Grice quotes Bennett in the Preface toWOW. Bennett has an earlier essay on rationality, which evidences that the topic is key at Grices Oxford. Bennett has studied better than anyone the way Locke is Griceian. A word or expression does not just stand for idea, but for the intention of the utterer to stand for it! Grice also enjoyed construal by Bennett of Grice as a nominalist. Bennett makes a narrow use of the epithet. Since Grice does distinguish between an utterance-token (x) and an utterance-type, and considers that the attribution of meaning from token to type is metabolic, this makes Grice a nominalist. Bennett is one of the few to follow Kantotle and make him popular on the pages of the Times Literary Supplement, of all places. Refs.: The locus classicus is “Aspects,” Clarendon. But there are allusions on ‘reason’ and ‘rationality, in The H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.