Speranza
Nothing really -- and this explains why linguists love it!
But Grice saw it as a 'tool'. Consider Socrates,
"What is knowledge?"
i.e.
"What is 'knowledge'?"
i.e.
what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for
"I know that p"
In Prolegomena (WoW -- Way of Words) Grice cites this, and it is clear that he is having in mind his theory of implicature to SOLVE a PROBLEM (rather than DISSOLVE it, as Witters would prefer) for the (Griceian) philosopher!
In the excursus on implication in "The causal theory of perception," Grice goes into great detail by NUMBERING philosophical theses that can receive this type of conversational-implicature treatment.
E.g.
What is necessary is possible.
Cfr. Burton-Roberts, or rather, Burton-Roberts, take note!
----
In the Prolegomena Grice quotes so MANY authors. But if we restrict to those that mattered (to him), i.e. the English-born members of Austin's kindergarten -- we see that he is thinking of applying his theory mainly to
P. F. STRAWSON's gross mistake in dealing with the horseshoe.
Into the bargain, he mentions J. L. Austin, H. L. A. Hart, and a few others. It's true he also quotes from Witters and some 'colonials' -- but that's not Grice the cricketer!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment