(∀x) – rendered by Grice as “all.”. 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.
Friday, May 1, 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment