Grice on Δόξα and Βουλή

Bayne remarked, publicly,

"I read Speranza on 'boulemaic' and a
strong desire to re-read Bentham
arises in me"

(or words)

His point is that I should avoid using the eventual neologism. But hey I'm serious. When I discovered that Allwood et al had using

'boulemaic'

in _Logic for Linguists_ I was fascinated. Not because I'm either (logic or linguist) but because this Scandinavian (or Dane if you must) was using 'boulemaic' in the precise sense -- and he's doing this back in the day, in 1977 -- I wanted it to be used (in the future).

For Allwood there's two types of logic:

alla Hintikka -- (perhaps Allwood is a Finn, not a Swede):

epistemic

or better, doxastic

including 'subdoxastic' -- cfr. Sperber on quasi-beliefs --.

And then there's

Grice's 'volitive' as cited by Chapman, somewhere -- but basically retelling Grice's story of the 'volitive' in Aspects of Reason.

'volitive' is of course 'boulemaic'

Now, there is an underlying logic to these two (and only two) kinds of psychological attitudes. They both involve a 'neustic' (boulemaic or doxastic in nature) and a common _phrastic_ or content.

Grice is bold enough to suggest -- in "Method", in _Conception_, that the doxastic operator is best seen not as _axiomatic_ but theorematic or corollarious.

I.e. we define only 'boulemaic' via Ramsification.

And then you get the 'doxastic' _for good measure_. Or 'into the bargain'

Clear?