Cavell on Grice -- Cavell's two cents

Speranza

My two cents:


Cent 1: 
Cavell is not a philosopher that answers our questions; (like Wittgenstein, I guess) he is a philosopher who (takes himself to) teach us new questions. 

That’s partly why it is not clear how, and to what, what he says is relevant. 

I think he thought, however, that the questions he is trying to teach us -- the ones we don’t know how to ask, and don’t see as relevant -- are more basic, somehow; so that if we don’t learn to ask them, we might never discover the problems with the questions we are asking (those he does not answer).

Cent 2: 

There are (at least two ways) into his philosophy: through Wittgenstein, and through phenomenology. 

The one through Witters (and Austin and Grice and Mates and White -- vide Atlas in "Essays on Grice") is more straightforward, I think. 

As a starting point, I would recommend his “The Availability of Wittgenstein’s Philosophy” in his early collection of essays: “Must We Mean What We Say?”