Grice's A

absolutes: trust Grice to pluralise Bradley’s absolute. While it is practical to restore the root of ‘axis’ for Grices value, it is not easy to find grecianisms for absolute (L. absolutus, from absolvere, In rhet. lang., unrestricted, unconditional, absolute hoc mihi videor videre, esse quasdam cum adjunctione necessitudines, quasdam simplices et absolutas, Cic. Inv. 2, 57, 170. Grice repatedly uses the plural ‘abosolutes,’ and occasionally the singular. An etymological glimpse may be in order. Obviously, Grice is having in mind the absolute-relative distinction, and he does not want to be seen as relativist, unless it is a constructionist relativist. The entry in Lewis and Short is ‘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. Grice refers to Bradley in ‘Prolegomena,’ and has an essay on the ‘absolutes.’ It is all back to when pragmatist philosopher and provocateur F. Schiller creates this parody edition of “Mind,” “Mind!” The frontispiece is a portrait of its immanence the absolute, which, Schiller notes, is very like the Bellman’s map in The hunting of the snark: completely blank. The absolute, or the infinite or ultimate reality, among other grand aliases, is the sum of all experience and being, and inconceivable to the human mind. It is monistic, consuming all into the one. If it sounds like something you would struggle to get your head around, that is pretty much the point. The absolute is an emblem of metaphysical idealism, the doctrine that truth exists only within the domain of thought. Idealism dominates the academy for the entirety of Dogdson’s career, and part of Grice’s, and it is beginning to come under attack. The realist mission, headed by Wilson, is to clean up philosophy’s act with the sound application of mathematics and objective facts, and it feels like a breath of fresh air. Schiller delights in trolling absolute idealists in general and Bradley in particular. Schiller claims that the snark is a satire on the absolute, whose notorious ineffability drive its seekers to derangement. But this is disingenuous. Bradley’s major essay, Appearance and reality, mirrors the point, insofar that there is one, of the snark. When you home in on a thing and try to pin it down by describing its attributes, and then try to pin down what those are too. Bradley uses the example of a lump of sugar. It all begins to crumble, and must be something other instead. What appears to be there is only ever an idea. Dodgson is, contrariwise, in line with idealist thinking. A passionate logician, Dodgson is working on an essay on symbolic logic. Two logical paradoxes that he poses in Mind and shares privately with friends and colleagues, such as Bradley, hint at a trouble-making sentiment regarding where logic might be headed. ‘A logical paradox’ results in two contradictory statements being simultaneously true. ‘What the tortoise said to Achilles’ (cited by Grice in his essay on egcrateia) sets up a predicament in which each proposition requires an additional supporting proposition, creating an infinite regress. A few years after Dodgson’s death, Russell begins to flex logic as a tool for denoting the world and testing the validity of propositions about it. Dodgson’s paradoxes are problematic and demand a solution. Russell’s response to ‘A logical paradox’ is to legislate nonsense away into a null-class – a set of non-existent propositions that, because it had no real members, do not exist either. Russell’s solution to ‘What the tortoise said to Achilles’ tucked away in a footnote to The Principles of Mathematics, entails a recourse to sense in order to determine whether or not a proposition should be asserted in the first place, teetering into the mind-dependent realm of idealism. Mentally determining meaning is a bit like mentally determining reality, and it is not a neat win for logic’s role as objective sword of truth.  In the snark, the principles of narrative self-immolate, so that the story, rather than describing things and events in the world, undoes them into something other. It ends like this. In the midst of the word he was trying to say, in the midst of his laughter and glee, he had softly and suddenly vanished away – for the snark was a boojum, you see. Strip the plot down to those eight final words, and it is all there. The thing sought turned out, upon examination, to be something else entirely. Beyond the flimsy veil of appearance, formed from words and riddled with holes, lies an inexpressible reality. By the late twentieth century, when Russell has won the battle of ideas and commonsense realism prevails, critics such as Gardner, in The Annotated Hunting of the Snark, are rattled by Carroll’s antirealism. If the reality we perceive is all there is, and it falls apart, we are left with nothing. Dodgson’s attacks on realism might look nihilistic or radical to a post-war mind steeped in atheist scientism, but they are neither. Like Grice, Dodgson is a man of his time, taking a philosophically conservative party line on absolute idealism and its theistic implications. Like Grice, Dodgson is, however, also prophetic, seeing conflict at the limits of language, logic and reality, and laying as of conceptual traps that continue to provoke it. The snark is one such trap. Carroll rejects his illustrator’s image of the boojum on the basis that it needs to remain unimaginable, for, after all, one cannot illustrate the incomprehensible nature of ultimate reality. It is a task as doomed as saying the unsayable – which, paradoxically, is a task Dodgson and Grice can not quite resist. At Oxford, they, and not just Schiller, laugh at Bradley’s absolute. Even Bradley laughed at it. But now Grice has an essay on absolutes, sic in plural. In the Oxonian received parlance, the absolute is a boo-jum, you see, so it cannot be plural. Bradley, however, does not help. He describes “a higher unity, and, on the other hand, pure spirit is not realised except in the absolute. It can never and it enters into, but is itself incapable of, evolution and progress. It may repay us too.” Bradley’s idealism applies to Grice’s axiology. For surely the absolute contrasts with the relative, and it is the relative-absolute distinction Grice feels tackling axiologically. Especially at Corpus, tutees are aware of Hartmann and his neo-Kantian axiology. Barnes thinks he has destroyed Hartmann for The Jowett. But, Grice asks, is Barnes understanding Hartmann? For Barnes, 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.: 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, henceforth, BANC.

abstractum: 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 there are ways Grice finds to relieve a predicate that is vacuous from the embarrassing consequence of denoting or being satisfied by the empty set. Grice exploits the nonvoidness of a predicate which is part of the definition of the void predicate. Consider ‘is married to a daughter of an English queen and a pope’ or ‘climbs on hands and knees a 29,000 foot mountain. We may have a class composed of daughters of an English queen and a pope, and the class of climbers on hands and knees of a 29,000 foot mountain. These two classes may be treated as co-extensive with the predicates 'stands in R1' to a sequence composed of the sets married to, daughters, English queens and popes’ and 'stands in R2 to a sequence composed of the sets climbers, 29,000 foot mountains, and things done on hands and knees.’ We correlate the initial void predicates with two distinct sequence: a sequence composed of relation R1, the set ‘married to,’ the set ‘daughters,’ the set ‘English queens,’ and the set ‘popes;’ and a sequence composed of R2, the set ‘climbers,’ the set ‘29,000 foot mountains,’ and the set ‘things done on hands and knees.’ It is a sequence, rather than the empty set, which should be used to determine the explanatory potentiality of a void predicate. It may be argued that the proposal involves a commission of a sin of minimalism, viz. to imposing in advance a limitation in the character of the explanation, requiring that the predicate in question be representable as being co-related with a sequence of non-empty classes. This may not be met by every void predicate. This may be a bonus, but not a condition of eligibility for the class of an explanatory predicate. The admissibility of a nonvoid predicate in an explanation of a possible phenomenon (why it would happen if it did happen) may depends on the availability of a generalisation whithin which the predicate specifies the antecedent condition. A non-trivial generalisations of this sort is certainly available if derivable from some further generalisation involving a less specific antecedent condition, supported by an antecedent condition that is specified by means a nonvoid predicate. The explanatory opportunity of a void predicate depend on its embodiment in an adequately powerful system. But then again, a bonus, viz. systematicity, becomes under pressure a necessity. 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. Consider, e. g. the various classes composed from Grice and Strawson, including {Grice, Strawson}, {Grice,{Grice, {Strawson}}}}. One does not normally ask where such a things is, or how much space it occupies. And indeed some philosopher may claim that the question makes no sense, or that the answer is a dismissive ‘nowhere, none’. But, as Grice remarks, this answer is not forced upon us by class theory. Reducing the ‘abstractum’ in terms of ‘iff’ does not simplify things: item i is an abstractum iff i is an instance of some kind K whose associated function f is governed by some ‘abstraction’ principle. A strong version of this account purports to identify a necessary condition for an item being an 'abstractum' and is seriously at odds with what Grice dismissively calls 'ordinary’ language.' He is being dismissive to pour scorn on Gellner who thought he spoke it. Now a class is a paradigmatic abstractum. But it is not clear that a set satisfies the proposed criterion. According to so-called 'naïve' set theory, the functional expression ‘is a set of’ is indeed characterised by a putative 'abstraction' principle.  Using a substitutional quantifier: the class of As = the class of Bs ≡ (Ax).(Ax ≡ Bx). But this principle is inconsistent, and fails to characterise an interesting concept. ‘Class’ is notably *not* introduced by abstraction. It remains an open question whether ‘class’ can be characterized by an abstraction principle. Even if such a principle is available, it is unlikely that a doxastic priority condition is satisfied, i. e., it is unlikely that mastery of the concept of 'class' presupposes mastery of the equivalence relation that figures in the analysandum. It is therefore uncertain whether a way of 'abstraction' classifies an item of class theory as an 'abstractum,' as it presumably must. The school of latter-day nominalism is for ever criticised at Oxford, and Grice is no exception. Do not expect Grice to use the phrase ‘propositional content,’ as Hare does so freely. Grices proposes a propositional complexum, rather, which frees him from a commitment to a higher-order calculus and the abstract entity of a feature or a proposition. Grice regards a proposition as an extensional family of propositional complexa (Paul saw Peter; Peter was seen by Paul). The topic of a propositional complex Grice regards as Oxonian in nature. Peacocke struggles with the same type of problems, in his essays on content. Only a perception-based account of content in terms of qualia gets the philosopher out of the vicious circle of appealing to a linguistic entity to clarify a psychological entity. One way to discharge the burden of giving an account of a proposition involves focusing on a range of utterances, the formulation of which features no connective or quantifier. Each expresses a propositional complexum which consists of a sequence simplex-1 and simplex-2, whose elements would be a set and an ordered sequence of this or that individuum which may be a member of the set. The propositional complexum ‘Fido is shaggy’ consists of a sequence of the set of shaggy individua and the singleton consisting of the individuum Fido. ‘Smith loves Fido’ is a propositional complexum, i. e., a sequence whose first element is the class “love” correlated to a two-place predicate) and a the ordered pair of the singletons Smith and Fido. We define alethic satisfactoriness. A propositional complexum is alethically satisfactory just in case the sequence is a member of the set. A “proposition” (prosthesis) simpliciter is defined as a family of propositional complexa. Family unity may vary in accordance with context. Ontological for Grice is at least liberal. He is hardly enamoured of some of the motivations which prompt the advocacy of psycho-physical identity. He has in mind a concern to exclude an entity such as as a ‘soul,’ an event of the soul, or a property of the soul. His taste is for keeping open house for all sorts of conditions of entities, just so long as when the entity comes in it helps with the housework, i. e., provided that Grice see the entity work, and provided that it is not detected in illicit logical behaviour, which need not involve some degree of indeterminacy, The entity works? Ergo, the entity exists. And, if it comes on the recommendation of some transcendental argument the entity may even qualify as an entium realissimum. To exclude an honest working entitiy is metaphysical snobbery, a reluctance to be seen in the company of any but the best. A category, a universalium plays a role in Grice’s meta-ethics. A principles or laws of psychology may be self-justifying, principles connected with the evaluation of ends. If these same principles play a role in determining what we count as entia realissima, metaphysics, and an abstractum would be grounded in part in considerations about value (a not unpleasant project). 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. The main interest by Grice is in what Ariskant calls the substantial universal, and figuratively perceiving it. To understand Grice’s Ariskant’s view on the universalium, one must introject into his sandals.  In the days of what Grice calls Athenian dialectics, Plathegel is treating a ‘forms’ as a thing separate from its sensible particular. For Plathegel, as Ariskant understands him, there is a ‘forma’ standing entirely apart from a concrete particular participating in it, leaving it hard to see how the ‘forma’ can contribute to the being and perceiving of a particular thing. Such a sharp distinction invokes difficult questions concerning the existence and ontological status of a ‘forma’ – questions disputed by followers of Plathegel. Ariskant regards a ‘forma’ as a ‘universalium.’ But Ariskant’s ‘to katholou’ is not Plathegel’s ‘form,’ idea, ‘eidos,’ or ‘idea.’ It is easy to miss this point, since talk of a universalium is often understood as talk of some independent, abstract, additional entity, posited by a ‘realist’ metaphysician. But Ariskant’s “universalium” need not be associated with Plathegel’s ‘forma.’ The association is particularly misleading when applied to Ariskant’s “to katholou.” Ariskant is very careful to disassociate his “to katholou” from Plathegel’s ‘forma.’ He says repeatedly that a universalium is not a ‘prima substantia’ (a ‘to kath’holou do not stand for a ‘this something’) and it is not separate from a sensible particular. Since he is very much concerned with rejecting the existence of a separate ‘forma,’ Ariskant is evidently aware of the problems concerning the existence and ontological status. Grice mainly avoids speaking about Plathegel’s own views (Code does not), which Plathegel expolores in the Parmenides. Nonetheless, Plathegel nowhere tries to prove the existence of the universalium. Plathegel’s remarks on the universalium remain neutral with regard to its ontological status, escaping the standard realism/nominalism divide. It is difficult to determine the precise reasons for Plathegel’s neutrality but it is clear that, since Ariskant is aware of the ontological problem, Plathgel’s neutrality cannot simply be the result of ignorance. Ariskant thinks that his rejection of a separate, abstract ‘forma’ or universalium gives him certain immunity against the ontological question. He might think that the ontological status of a universalium is not particularly worrisome as long as one does not separate it from a particular individuum and treat a universalium as a thing in its own right, extending to it an irreducible ontological status. Only Grice among his commentators tries to develop a constructive account of Ariskant’s neutrality. The received view is that Ariskant commits himself to a dualism of a particular individuum and a universalium, differing from Plathegel’s dualism only in that Ariskant denies that a universalium can could independently from a particular individuum of which it is predicated. By a universalium Ariskant means that which is predicated of a ‘substantia prima;’ by ‘substantia prima’ or individuum, what is not. This seems to set up some sort of linguistic distinction between a particular individuum (subjectum) and an abstract universalium (praedicatum). If a universalium is that which is predicated of a concretum and an individuum and a concretum individuum is that which is not, it follows that Ariskant’s abstractum universalium and his concretum particular individuum are different. No abstractum universalium is a particular concretum individuum and vice versa. From this it is easy to draw the conclusion that the distinction between a particular concretum individuum and a universalium individuum is absolute. Ariskant, like Plathegel would treat a particular concretum individuum and an abstract universalium as two ontological types, which are inter-dependent.  While Aristkant defines a particular concretum individuum only negatively, he also more positively indicates that a particular concretum individuum stands in a peculiarly intimate relation to an abstractum universalium which hardly sounds ‘dualist.’ In the Categories, Ariskant argues that anything that is predicated of some subject is ultimately predicated of a ‘prima substantia.’ If this ‘prima substantia’ does not exist, it would be impossible for any of the other things to exist. Here Ariskant takes the opposite position to Plathegel with regard to the ontological dependence of a universal. While Aristkant’s abstractum universalium does not exist without a particular concretum individuum, Plathegel’s ‘forma’ can. But can a particular concretum individuum can exist independently of an abstractum universalium predicated of it? No, a concretum individuum or ‘prima substantia’ and an abstract universalium or ‘secunda substantia’ are ontologically inter-dependent. 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. In what way is horseness ‘abstracted’ from this or that concrete horse? Ariskant’s ‘abstractum’ relates to ‘universalium’ now applied to a ‘term’, in the A and E propositions, for which Ariskant uses the expression of the ‘commensurate universal.’ Primary universality is co-extensionality: the major premise is a universal proposition. Serious ontological discussion is usually avoided by the Oxonian philosopher, except if you have to criticise a New-World nominalist, as Austin, Grice and Strawson, but also Warnock (in ‘Metaphysics in logic’) do, pointing to the many mistakes he perceives in a hasty treatment by universals, such as Quine’s. In this respect New World nominalist philosophers are to blame. In what Grice calls the “American School of Latter-Day Nominalists,” there is one credo that keeps them united: their hatred for the proposition. So Grice hastens to distinguish between an abstractum and a universalium. As a Lit. Hum, which Strawson is not, Grice is more inclined always to go back to Ariskant. ‘Ordinary’ language and its syntax may be a pretty good guide to logical form, but after all, Ariskant speaks ‘ordinary’ (koine) enough. Unlike in Bradley’s days, in the Oxford of Grice’s generation, to quote Plathegel is a no no; to quote koine Ariskant is fine. Grice lectured with Austin and Strawson on the ‘abstractum’ and the ‘universalium’ in “Categoriae.” And if you can quote the Grecian philosopher in Grecian, the better, because Grice the that New-World nominalist philosopher will not. In his “Griceish,” Grice introduces 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)). While a particulare can never be izz-predicated or hazz-predicated of something, an individuum (an individual white, ‘to ti leukon,’ Cat. 2.1a27) may be hazz-predicated of something. While every particulare is an individuum, the converse does not hold. A particulare cannot receive a property unless the particulare is something essentially. A particular must be something or other definable in order to even have a property. A particular must be tode ti, a this what, where the ‘ti’ is the ‘what’ defining the ‘tode.’ The ‘ti’ is the ‘what’ that the ‘this’ (‘tode’) picks out.  The ‘ti’ may involve quantification over an essentia, or essential property, of the ‘tode.’ The ‘tode’ may pick out the essence, and the ‘ti’ ranges over this or that singular or particular endowed with that essence. ‘Grice izzes tode ti’ may thus generalise as ‘Grice is a man,’ or ‘Grice is this man.’ (No articles in Latin). As Grice notes, a prima substantia prima is an individual tode ti (Cat. 1b6-9 3b10-15). A prima substantia, indeed, the tode ti, is the particular or singular (e. g., the singular or particular man that Grice is), which is not predicable of anything further. Only a prima substantia is a ‘this,’ i.e. a, a singular, a singleton, a particular. A particular man is a this. No this is predicable of this this. Materia (hyle) is not tode ti or a prima substantia. The matter of which a particular is made is not a this. Grice knows of Cohen through Code. Grice was obsessed with this or that. An abstractum (such as “philosopher”) needs to be attached in a communicatum by what Grice calls a ‘quasi-demonstrative,’ and for which he uses “φ.” Consider, Grice says, an utterance, out of the blue, such as ‘The philosopher in the garden seems bored,’ involving two iota-operators. As there may be more that a philosopher in a garden in the great big world, the utterer intends his addressee to treat the utterance as expandable into ‘The A which is φ is B,’ where “φ” is a quasi-demonstrative epithet to be identified in a particular context of utterance. The utterer intends that, to identify  the denotatum of “φ” for a particular utterance of ‘The philosopher in the garden seems bored,’ the addressee wil proceed via the identification of a particular philosopher, say Grice, as being a good candidate for being the philosopher meant. The addressee is also intended to identify the candidate for a denotatum of φ by finding in the candidate a feature, e. g., that of being the garden at St. John’s, which is intended to be used to yield a composite epithet (‘philosopher in St. John’s garden’), which in turn fills the bill of being the epithet which the utterer believes is being uniquely satisfied by the philosopher selected as the candidate. Determining the denotatum of “φ” standardly involve determining what feature the utterer believes is uniquely instantiated by the predicate “philosopher.” This in turn involves satisfying oneself that some particular feature is in fact uniquely satisfied by a particular actual item, viz. a particular philosopher such as Grice seeming bored in the garden of St. John’s. A universalium is an ab-stractum. 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.: 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,” S. II, c. 6-f. 15 and c. 6, f. 23, BANC.  

ariskant: Grice gives seminars on Ariskant (“the first part of this individual interested some of my tutees; the second, others.” Ariskant philosophised in Grecian, but also in the pure Teutonic, and Grice collaborated with Baker in this area. Curiously, Baker majors in French and philosophy and does research at the Sorbonne. Grice would sometimes define ‘philoosphy.’ Oddly, Grice gives a nice example of ‘philosopher’ meaning ‘addicted to general, usually stoic, reflections about life.’ In the context where it occurs, the implicatum is Stevensonian. If Stevenson says that an athlete is usually tall, a philosopher may occasionally be inclined to reflect about life in general, as a birrelist would. Grice’s gives an alternate meaning, intended to display circularity: ‘engaged in philosophical studies.’ The idea of Grice of philosophy is the one the Lit. Hum. instills.  It is a unique experience, unknown in the New World, our actually outside Oxford, or post-Grice, where a classicist is not seen as a philosopher. Once a tutorial fellow in philosophy (rather than classics) and later university lecturer in philosophy (rather than classics) strengthens his attachment. Grice needs to regarded by his tutee as a philosopher simpliciter, as oppoosed to a prof: the Waynflete is a metaphysician; the White is a moralist, the Wykeham a logician, and the Wilde a ‘mental’. For Grice’s “greatest living philosopher,” Heidegger, ‘philosophy’ is a misnomer. While philology merely discourses (logos) on love, the philosopher claims to be a wizard (sophos) of love. Liddell and Scott have “φιλοσοφία,” which they render as “love of knowledge, pursuit thereof, speculation,” “ἡ φ. κτῆσις ἐπιστήμης,” defined as “ἄσκησις ἐπιτηδείου τέχνης;” systematic, methodical treatment of a subjects; “ἐμπειρίᾳ μέτιθι καὶ φιλοσοφίᾳ; ἡ περὶ τὰς ἔριδας φ.:” scientific treatment of argumentation; “ἡ περὶ τοὺς λόγους φ.;” the study of oratory; pl., οἱ ἐν ταῖς φ. πολὺν χρόνον διατρίψαντες Pl. Tht. 172c; τέχναι καὶ φ.; also as ‘philosophy,’ “ἱστορία φ. ἐστὶν ἐκ παραδειγμάτων,” “διὰ τῆς φ. καὶ κενῆς ἀπάτης;” “τοῖς ἐν φιλοσοφίᾳ ζῶσιν; “Πλάτων καὶ φ.;” “ἡ θεία φ.;” “ἐκείνου τῇ φ.; “ἡ περὶ τὰ ἀνθρώπεια φ.;” “ἡ τῶν Ἰταλικῶν φ.;” “αἱ εἰρημέναι φ.;” “ἡ Ἰωνικὴ φ.; “ἡ δογματική, Ἀκαδημαϊκή, σκεπτικὴ φ.; “ὁ Ἐμπεδοκλῆς ἐν ἀρχῇ τῆς φ.” “ἡ πρώτη φ.,” with striking originality, metaphysic, Arist. Metaph. 1026a24. Just one sense, but various ambiguities remain in ‘philosopher,’ as per Grice’s two  usages. As it happens, Grice is both addicted to general, usually stoic, speculations about life, and he is a member of The Oxford Philosophical Society. 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.

avowal:  ‘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?” BANC.

axiologicum: Grice sometimes enjoys sounding pretentious and uses the definite article ‘the’ indiscriminately, just to tease Flew, his tutee, who said that talking of ‘the self’ is just ‘rubbish’. It is different with Grice’s ‘the good’ (to agathon), ‘the rational,’ (to logikon), ‘the valuable’ (valitum), and ‘the axiological’. Of course, whilesticking with ‘value,’ Grice plays with Grecian “τιμή.” Lewis and Short have ‘vălor,’ f. ‘valeo,’ which they render as ‘value,’ adding that it is supposed to translate in Gloss. Lab, Grecian ‘τιμή.’ ‘valor, τιμή, Gloss. Lab.’ ‘Valere,’ which of course algo gives English ‘valid,’ that Grice overuses, is said by Lewis and Short to be cognate with “vis,” “robur,” “fortissimus,” cf. debilis” and they render as “to be strong.” So one has to be careful here. “Axiology” is a German thing, and not used at Clifton or Oxford, where they stick with ‘virtus’ or ‘arete.’ This or that Graeco-Roman philosopher may have explored a generic approach to ‘value.’ Grice somewhat dismisses Hare who in Language of Morals very clearly distinguishes between deontic ‘ought’ and teleological, value-judgemental ‘good.’ For ‘good’ may have an aesthetic use: ‘that painting is good,’ the food is good). The sexist ‘virtus’ of the Romans perhaps did a disservice to Grecian ‘arete,’ but Grice hardly uses ‘arete,’ himself. It is etymologically unrelated to ‘agathon,’ yet rumour has it that ‘arete,’ qua ‘excellence,’ is ‘aristos,’ the superlative of ‘agathon.’ Since Aristotle is into the ‘mesotes,’ Grice worries not. Liddell and Scott have “ἀρετή” and render it simpliciter as “goodness, excellence, of any kind,” adding that “in Hom. esp. of manly qualities”: “ποδῶν ἀρετὴν ἀναφαίνων;” “ἀμείνων παντοίας ἀρετὰς ἠμὲν πόδας ἠδὲ μάχεσθαι καὶ νόον;” so of the gods, “τῶν περ καὶ μείζων ἀ. τιμή τε βίη τε;” also of women, “ἀ. εἵνεκα for valour,” “ἀ. ἀπεδείκνυντο,” “displayed brave deeds.”  But when Liddell and Scott give the philosophical references (Plathegel and Ariskant), they do render “ἀρετή,” as ‘value,’ generally, excellence, “ἡ ἀ. τελείωσίς τις” Arist. Met. 1021b20, cf. EN1106a15, etc.; of persons, “ἄνδρα πὺξ ἀρετὰν εὑρόντα,” “τὸ φρονεῖν ἀ. μεγίστη,” “forms of excellence, “μυρίαι ἀνδρῶν ἀ.;” “δικαστοῦ αὕτη ἀ.;” esp. moral virtue, opp. “κακία,” good nature, kindness, etc. We should not be so concerned about this, were not for the fact that Grice explored Foot, not just on meta-ethics as a ‘suppositional’ imperratives, but  on ‘virtue’ and ‘vice,’ by Foot, who had edited a reader in meta-ethics for the series of Grice’s friend, Warnock. Grice knows that when he hears the phrases value system, or belief system, he is conversing with a relativist. So he plays jocular here. If a value is not a concept, a value system at least is not what Davidson calls a conceptual scheme. However, in “The conception of value” (henceforth, “Conception”) Grice does argue that value IS a concept, and thus part of the conceptual scheme by Quine. Hilary Putnam congratulates Grice on this in “Fact and value,” crediting Baker – i. e. Judy – into the bargain. While utilitarianism, as exemplified by Bentham, denies that a moral intuition need be taken literally, Bentham assumes the axiological conceptual scheme of hedonistic eudaemonism, with eudaemonia as the maximal value (summum bonum) understood as hedone. The idea of a system of values (cf. system of ends) is meant to unify the goals of the agent in terms of the pursuit of eudæmonia. Grice wants to disgress from naturalism, and the distinction between a description and anything else. Consider the use of ‘rational’ as applied to ‘value.’ A naturalist holds that ‘rational’ can be legitimately apply to the ‘doxastic’ realm, not to the ‘buletic’ realm. A desire (or a ‘value’) a naturalist would say is not something of which ‘rational’ is predicable. Suppose, Grice says, I meet a philosopher who is in the habit of pushing pins into other philosophers. Grice asks the philosopher why he does this. The philosopher says that it gives him pleasure. Grice asks him whether it is the fact that he causes pain that gives him pleasure. The philosopher replies that he does not mind whether he causes pain. What gives him pleasure is the physical sensation of driving a pin into a philosopher’s body. Grice asks him whether he is aware that his actions cause pain. The philosopher says that he is. Grice asks him whether he would not feel pain if others did this to him. The philosopher agrees that he would. I ask him whether he would allow this to happen. He says that he guesses he would seek to prevent it. Grice asks him whether he does not think that others must feel pain when he drives pins into them, and whether he should not do to others what he would try to prevent them from doing to him. The philosopher says that pins driven into him cause him pain and he wishes to prevent this. Pins driven by him into others do not cause him pain, but pleasure, and he therefore wishes to do it. Grice asks him whether the fact that he causes pain to other philosophers does not seem to him to be relevant to the issue of whether it is rationally undesirable to drive pins into people. He says that he does not see what possible difference can pain caused to others, or the absence of it, make to the desirability of deriving pleasure in the way that he does. Grice asks him what it is that gives him pleasure in this particular activity. The philosopher replies that he likes driving pins into a philosopher’s resilient body. Grice asks whether he would derive equal pleasure from driving pins into a tennis ball. The philosopher says that he would derive equal pleasure, that into what he drives his pins, a philosopher or a tennis ball, makes no difference to him – the pleasure is similar, and he is quite prepared to have a tennis ball substituted, but what possible difference can it make whether his pins perforate living men or tennis balls? At this point, Grice begins to suspect that the philosopher is evil. Grice does not feel like agreeing with a naturalist, who reasons that the pin-pushing philosopher is a philosopher with a very different scale of moral values from Grice, that a value not being susceptible to argument, Grice may disagree but not reason with the pin-pushing philosopher. Grice rather sees the pin-pushing philosopher beyond the reach of communication from the world occupied by him. Communication is as unattainable as it is with a philosopher who that he is a doorknob, as in the story by Hoffman. A value enters into the essence of what constitutes a person. The pursuit of a rational end is part of the essence of a person. Grice does not claim any originality for his position (which much to Ariskant), only validity. The implicatum by Grice is that rationalism and axiology are incompatible, and he wants to cancel that. So the keyword here is rationalistic axiology, in the neo-Kantian continental vein, with a vengeance. Grice arrives at value (validitum, optimum, deeming) via Peirce on meaning. And then there is the truth “value,” a German loan-translation (as value judgment, Werturteil). The sorry story of deontic logic, Grice says, faces Jørgensens dilemma. The dilemma by Jørgensens is best seen as a trilemma, Grice says; viz. (a) reasoning requires that premise and conclusion have what Boole, Peirce, and Frege call a “truth” value; (b) an imperative dos not have a “truth” value; (c) there may be a reasoning with an imperative as premise or conclusion. A philosopher can reject (a) and provide an inference mechanism on elements – the input of the premise and the output of the conclusion -- which are not presupposed to have a “truth” value. A philosopher can reject (b) and restrict ‘satisfactory’ value to a doxastic embedding a buletic (“He judges he wills…”). A philosopher can reject (c), and refuse to explore the buletic. Grice generalizes over value as the mode-neutral ‘satisfactory.’ Both ‘p’ and “!p” may be satisfactory. ‘.p’ has doxastic value (0/1); ‘!p’ has buletic value  (0/1). The mode marker of the utterance guides the addresse you as to how to read ‘satisfactory.’ Grice’s ‘satisfactory’ is a variation on a theme by Hofstadter and McKinsey, who elaborate a syntax for the imperative mode, using satisfaction. They refer to what they call the ‘satisfaction-function’ of a fiat. A fiat is ‘satisfied’ (as The door is closed may also be said to be satisfied iff the door is closed) iff what is commanded is the case. The fiat ‘Let the door be closed’ is satisfied if the door is closed. An unary or dyadic operator becomes a satisfaction-functor. As Grice puts it, an inferential rule, which flat rationality is the capacity to apply, is not arbitrary. The inferential rule picks out a transition of acceptance in which transmission of ‘satisfactory’ is guaranteed or expected. As Grice notes, since mode marker indicate the species ‘satisfactory’ does. He imports into the object-language ‘It is satisfactory-d/p that’ just in case psi-d/b-p is satisfactory.  Alla Tarski, Grice introduces ‘It is acceptable that’: It is acceptable that psi-d/b-p is satisfactory-b/d just in case ‘psi-d/b-p is satisfactory-d/b’ is satisfactory-b/d. Grice goes on to provide a generic value-assignment for satisfactoriness-functors. For coordinators: “φ Λ ψ” is 1-b/d just in case φ is 1-b/d and ψ is 1-b/d. “φ ν ψ”  is 1-b/d just in case one of the pair, φ and ψ, is 1-b/d. For subordinator: “φ⊃ψ” is 1-b/d just in case either φ is 0-b/d or ψ is 0-b/d. There are, however, a number of points to be made. It is not fully clear to Grice just how strong the motivation is for assigning a value to a mode-neutral, generic functor. Also he is assuming symmetry, leaving room for a functor is introduced if a restriction is imposed. Consider a bi-modal utterance. “The beast is filthy and do not touch it” and “The beast is filthy and I shall not touch it” seem all right. The commutated “Do not touch the beast and it is filthy” is dubious. “Touch the beast and it will bite you,” while idiomatic is hardly an imperative, since ‘and’ is hardly a conjunction. “Smith is taking a bath or leave the bath-room door open” is intelligible. The commutated “Leave the bath-room door open or Smith is taking a bath” is less so. In a bi-modal utterance, Grice makes a case for the buletic to be dominant over the doxastic. The crunch comes, however, with one of the four possible unary satisfactoriness-functors, especially with regard to the equivalence of  “~psi-b/d-p” and “psi-b/d-~p). Consider “Let it be that I now put my hand on my head” or  “Let it be that my bicycle faces north” in which neither seems to be either satisfactory or unsatisfactory. And it is a trick to assign a satisfactory value to “~psi-b/d-p” and “~psi-b/d~p.” Do we proscribe this or that form altogether, for every cases? But that would seem to be a pity, since ~ ! ~p seems to be quite promising as a representation for you may (permissive) do alpha that satisfies p; i.e., the utterer explicitly conveys his refusal to prohibit his addressee A doing alpha. Do we disallow embedding of (or iterating) this or that form? But that (again if we use ~!p and ~!~p  to represent may) seems too restrictive. Again, if !p is neither buletically satisfactory nor buletically unsatisfactory (the utterer could care less) do we assign a value other than 1 or 0 to !p (buletically neuter, 0.5). Or do we say, echoing Quine, that we have a buletically satisfactoriness value gap? These and other such problems would require careful consideration. Yet Grice cannot see that those problems would prove insoluble, any more than this or that analogous problem connected with Strawsons presupposition (Dont arrest the intruder!) are insoluble. In Strawsons case, the difficulty is not so much to find a solution as to select the best solution from those which present themselves. Grice takes up the topic of a calculus in connection with the introduction rule and the elimination rule of a modal such as must. We might hope to find, for each member of a certain family of modalities, an introduction rule and an elimination rule which would be analogous to the rules available for classical logical constants. Suggestions are not hard to come by. Let us suppose that we are seeking to provide such a pair of rules for the particular modality of necessity □. For (□,+) Grice considers the following (Grice thinks equivalent) forms: if φ is demonstrable, □φ is demonstrable. Provided φ is dependent on no assumptions, derive φ from □φ. For  (□,-), Grice considers From □φ derive φ. It is to be understood, of course, that the values of the syntactical variable φ would contain either a buletic or a doxastic mode markers. Both !p and .p would be proper substitutes for φ but p would not. Grice wonders: [W]hat should be said of Takeuti’s conjecture (roughly) that the nature of the introduction rule determines the character of the elimination rule? There seems to be no particular problem about allowing an introduction rule which tells us that, if it is established in P’s personalised system that φ, it is necessary, with respect to P, that φ is doxastically satisfactory/establishable. The accompanying elimination rule is, however, slightly less promising. If we suppose such a rule to tell us that, if one is committed to the idea that it is necessary, with respect to P, that φ, one is also committed to whatever is expressed by φ, we shall be in trouble. For such a rule is not acceptable. φ will be a buletic expression such as Let it be that Smith eats his hat. And my commitment to the idea that Smiths system requires him to eat his hat does not ipso facto involve me in accepting volitively Let Smith eat his hat. But if we take the elimination rule rather as telling us that, if it is necessary, with respect to X, that let X eat his hat, then let X eat his hat possesses satisfactoriness-with-respect-to-X, the situation is easier. For this person-relativised version of the rule seems inoffensive, even for Takeuti, we hope.  Grice, following Mackie, uses absolutism, as opposed to relativism, which denies the rational basis to attitude ascriptions (but cf. Hare on Subjectsivism). Grice is concerned with the absence of a thorough discussion of value by English philosophers, other than Hare (and he is only responding to Mackie!). Continental philosophers, by comparison, have a special discipline, axiology, for it! Similarly, a continental-oriented tradition Grice finds in The New World in philosophers of a pragmatist bent, such as Carus. Grice wants to say that rationality is a value, because it is a faculty that a creature (human) displays to adapt and survive to his changing environments. The implicature of the title is that values have been considered in the English philosophical tradition, almost alla Nietzsche, to belong to the realm irrational. Grice grants that axiological implicatum rests on a PRE-rational propension. While Grice could play with “the good” in the New World, as a Lit. Hum. he knew he had to be slightly more serious. The good is one of the values, but what is valuing? Would the New Worlders understand valuing unattached to the pragmatism that defines them? Grice starts by invoking Hume on his bright side: the concept of value, versus the conception of value. Or rather, how the concept of value derives from the conception of value. A distinction that would even please Aquinas (conceptum/conceptio), and the Humeian routine. Some background for his third Carus lecture. He tries to find out what Mackie means when he says that a value is ultimately Subjectsive. What about inter-Subjectsive, and constructively objective? Grice constructs absolute value out of relative value. But once a rational pirot P (henceforth, P – Grice liked how it sounded like Locke’s parrot) constructs value, the P assigns absolute status to rationality qua value. The P cannot then choose not to be rational at the risk of ceasing to exist (qua person, or essentially rationally human agent). A human, as opposed to a person, assigns relative value to his rationality. A human is accidentally rational. A person is necessarily so. A distinction seldom made by Aristotle and some of his dumbest followers obsessed with the modal-free adage, Homo rationale animal. Short and Lewis have “hūmānus” (old form: hemona humana et hemonem hominem dicebant, Paul. ex Fest. p. 100 Müll.; cf. homo I.init.), adj., f. “homo,” and which they render as “of or belonging to man, human.” Grice also considers the etymology of ‘person.’ Lewis and Short have ‘persōna,’  according to Gabius Bassus ap. Gell. 5, 7, 1 sq., f. ‘persŏno,’ “to sound through, with the second syllable lengthened.’ Falsa est (finitio), si dicas, Equus est animal rationale: nam est equus animal, sed irrationale, Quint.7,3,24:homo est animal rationale; “nec si mutis finis voluptas, rationalibus quoque: quin immo ex contrario, quia mutis, ideo non rationalibus;” “a rationali ad rationale;” “τὸ λογικόν ζῷον,” ChrysiStoic.3.95; ἀρεταὶ λ., = διανοητικαί, oἠθικαί, Arist. EN1108b9; “λογικός, ή, όν, (λόγος), ζῶον λόγον ἔχον NE, 1098a3-5. λόγον δὲ μόνον ἄνθρωπος ἔχει τῶν ζῴων, man alone of all animals possesses speech, from the Politics. Grice takes the stratification of values by Hartmann much more seriously than Barnes. Grice plays with rational motivation. He means it seriously. The motivation is the psychological bite, but since it is qualified by rational, it corresponds to the higher more powerful bit of the soul, the rational soul. There are, for Grice, the Grecians, Kantotle and Plathegel, three souls: the vegetal, the animal, and the rational. As a matter of history, Grice reaches value (in its guises of optimum and deeming) via his analysis of meaning by Peirce. Many notions are value-paradeigmatic. The most important of all philosophical notions that of rationality, presupposes objective value as one of its motivations. For Grice, ratio can be understood cognoscendi but also essendi, indeed volendi and fiendi, too. Rational motivation involves a ratio cognoscendi and a ratio volendi; objective, “objectum,” and “objectus,” ūs, m. f. “obicio,” rendered as “a casting before, a putting against, in the way, or opposite, an opposing; or, neutr., a lying before or opposite (mostly poet. and in postAug. prose): dare objectum parmaï, the opposing of the shield” “vestis;” “insula portum efficit objectu laterum,” “by the opposition,” “cum terga flumine, latera objectu paludis tegerentur;” “molis;” “regiones, quæ Tauri montis objectu separantur;” “solem interventu lunæ occultari, lunamque terræ objectu, the interposition,” “eademque terra objectu suo umbram noctemque efficiat;” “al. objecta soli: hi molium objectus (i. e. moles objectas) scandere, the projection,” transf., that which presents itself to the sight, an object, appearance, sight, spectacle;” al. objecto;  and if not categoric. This is analogous to the overuse by Grice of psychoLOGICAL when he just means souly. It is perhaps his use of psychological for souly that leads to take any souly concept as a theoretical concept within a folksy psychoLOGICAL theory. Grice considered the stratification of values, alla Hartmann, unlike Barnes, who dismissed him in five minutes. “Some like Philippa Foot, but Hare is MY man,” Grice would say. “Virtue” ethics was becoming all the fashion, especially around Somerville. Hare was getting irritated by the worse offender, his Anglo-Welsh tutee, originally with a degree from the other place, Williams. Enough for Grice to want to lecture on value, and using Carus as an excuse! Mackie was what Oxonians called a colonial, and a clever one! In fact, Grice quotes from Hares contribution to a volume on Mackie. Hares and Mackies backgrounds could not be more different. Like Grice, Hare was a Lit. Hum., and like Grice, Hare loves the Grundlegung. But unlike Grice and Barnes, Hare would have nothing to say about Stevenson. Philosophers in the play group of Grice never took the critique by Ayer of emotivism seriously. Stevenson is the thing. V. Urmson on the emotive theory of ethics, tracing it to English philosphers like Ogden, Barnes, and Duncan-Jones. Barnes was opposing both Prichard (who was the Whites professor of moral philosophy – and more of an interest than Moore is, seeing that Prichard is Barness tutor at Corpus) and Hartmann. Ryle would have nothing to do with Hartmann, but these were the days before Ryle took over Oxford, and forbade any reference to a continental philosopher, even worse if a “Hun.” Grice reaches the notion of value through that of meaning. If Peirce is simplistic, Grice is not. But his ultra-sophisticated analysis ends up being deemed to hold in this or that utterer. And deeming is valuing, as is optimum. While Grice rarely used axiology, he should! A set of three lectures, which are individually identified below. I love Carus! Grice was undecided as to what his Carus lectures were be on. Grice explores meaning under its value optimality guise in Meaning revisited. Grice thinks that a value-paradeigmatic notion allows him to respond in a more apt way to what some critics were raising as a possible vicious circle in his approach to semantic and psychological notions. The Carus lectures are then dedicated to the construction, alla Hume, of a value-paradeigmatic notion in general, and value itself. Grice starts by quoting Austin, Hare, and Mackie, of Oxford. The lectures are intended to a general audience, provided it is a philosophical general audience. Most of the second lecture is a subtle exploration by Grice of the categorical imperative of Kant, with which he had struggled in the last Locke lecture in “Aspects,” notably the reduction of the categorical imperative to this or that counsel of prudence with an implicated protasis to the effect that the agent is aiming at eudæmonia. The Carus Lectures are three: on objectivity and value, on relative and absolute value, and on metaphysics and value. The first lecture, on objectivity and value, is a review Inventing right and wrong by Mackie, quoting Hare’s antipathy for a value being ‘objective’. The second lecture, on relative and absolute value, is an exploration on the categorical imperative, and its connection with a prior hypothetical or suppositional imperative. The third lecture, on metaphycis and value, is an eschatological defence of absolute value. The collective citation should be identified by each lecture separately. This is a metaphysical defence by Grice of absolute value. The topic fascinates Grice, and he invents a few routines to cope with it. Humeian projection rationally reconstructs the intuitive concept being of value. Category shift allows to put a value such as the disinterestedness by Smith in grammatical subject position, thus avoiding to answer that the disinterestedness of Smith is in the next room, since it is not the spatio-temporal continuan prote ousia that Smith is. But the most important routine is that of trans-substantatio, or metousiosis. A human reconstructs as a rational personal being, and alla Kantotle, whatever he judges is therefore of absolute value. The issue involves for Grice the introduction of a telos qua aition, causa finalis (final cause), role, or métier. The final cause of a tiger is to tigerise, the final cause of a reasoner is to reason, the final cause of a person is to personise. And this entails absolute value, now metaphysically defended. The justification involves the ideas of end-setting, unweighed rationality, autonomy, and freedom. In something like a shopping list that Grice provides for issues on free. Attention to freedom calls for formidably difficult undertakings including the search for a justification for the adoption or abandonment of an ultimate end. The point is to secure that freedom does not dissolve into compulsion or chance. Grice proposes four items for this shopping list. A first point is that full action calls for strong freedom. Here one has to be careful that since Grice abides by what he calls the Modified Occams Razor in the third James lecture on Some remarks about logic and conversation, he would not like to think of this two (strong freedom and weak freedom) as being different senses of free. Again, his calls for is best understood as presupposes. It may connect with, say, Kanes full-blown examples of decisions in practical settings that call for or presuppose libertarianism. A second point is that the buletic-doxastic justification of action has to accomodate for the fact that we need freedom which is strong. Strong or serious autonomy or freedom ensures that this or that action is represented as directed to this or that end E which are is not merely the agents, but which is also freely or autonomously adopted or pursued by the agent. Grice discusses the case of the gym instructor commanding, Raise your left arm! The serious point then involves this free adoption or free pursuit. Note Grices use of this or that personal-identity pronoun: not merely mine, i.e. not merely the agents, but in privileged-access position. This connects with what Aristotle says of action as being up to me, and Kant’s idea of the transcendental ego. An end is the agents in that the agent adopts it with liberum arbitrium. This or that ground-level desire may be circumstantial. A weak autonomy or freedom satisfactorily accounts for this or that action as directed to an end which is mine. However, a strong autonomy or freedom, and a strong autonomy or freedom only, accounts for this or that action as directed to an end which is mine, but, unlike, say, some ground-level circumstantial desire which may have sprung out of some circumstantial adaptability to a given scenario, is, first, autonomously or freely adopted by the agent, and, second, autonomously or freely pursued by the agent. The use of the disjunctive particle or in the above is of some interest. An agent may autonomously or freely adopt an end, yet not care to pursue it autonomously or freely, even in this strong connotation that autonomous or free sometimes has. A further point relates to causal indeterminacy. Any attempt to remedy this situation by resorting to causal indeterminacy or chance will only infuriate the scientist without aiding the philosopher. This remark by Grice has to be understood casually. For, as it can be shown, this or that scientist may well have resorted to precisely that introduction and in any case have not self-infuriated. The professional tag that is connoted by philosopher should also be seen as best implicated than entailed. A scientist who does resort to the introduction of causal indeterminacy may be eo ipso be putting forward a serious consideration regarding ethics or meta-ethics. In other words, a cursory examination of the views of a scientist like Eddington, beloved by Grice, or this or that moral philosopher like Kane should be born in mind when considering this third point by Grice. The reference by Grice to chance, random, and causal indeterminacy, should best be understood vis-à-vis Aristotles emphasis on tykhe, fatum, to the effect that this or that event may just happen just by accident, which may well open a can of worms for the naive Griceian, but surely not the sophisticated one (cf. his remarks on accidentally, in Prolegomena). A further item in Grices shopping list involves the idea of autonomous or free as a value, or optimum. The specific character of what Grice has as  strong autonomy or freedom may well turn out to consist, Grice hopes, in the idea of this or that action as the outcome of a certain kind of strong valuation  ‒ where this would include the rational selection, as per e.g. rational-decision theory, of this or that ultimate end. What Grice elsewhere calls out-weighed or extrinsically weighed rationality, where rational includes the buletic, of the end and not the means to it. This or that full human action calls for the presence of this or that reason, which require that this or that full human action for which this or that reason accounts should be the outcome of a strong rational valuation. Like a more constructivist approach, this line suggests that this or that action may require, besides strong autonomy or freedom, now also strong valuation. Grice sets to consider how to adapt the buletic-doxastic soul progression to reach these goals. In the case of this or that ultimate end E, justification should be thought of as lying, directly, at least, in this or that outcome, not on the actual phenomenal fulfilment of this or that end, but rather of the, perhaps noumenal, presence qua end. Grice relates to Kants views on the benevolentia or goodwill and malevolentia, or evil will, or illwill. Considers Smiths action of giving Jones a job. Smith may be deemed to have given Jones a job, whether or not Jones actually gets the job. It is Smiths benevolentia, or goodwill, not his beneficentia, that matters. Hence in Short and Lewis, we have “bĕnĕfĭcentĭa,” from “beneficus,” like magnificentia, munificentia, from magnificus, munificus; cf. Beier and Gernh. upon Cicero, Off. 1, 7, 20, and which they thus render as “the quality of beneficus, kindness, beneficence, an honorable and kind treatment of others” (omaleficentia, Lact. Ira Dei, 1, 1; several times in the philos. writings of Cicero. Elsewhere rare: quid praestantius bonitate et beneficentiā?” “beneficentia, quam eandem vel benignitatem vel liberalitatem appellari licet,” “comitas ac beneficentia,” “uti beneficentiā adversus supplices,”“beneficentia augebat ornabatque subjectsos.” In a more general fashion then, it is the mere presence of an end qua end of a given action that provides the justification of the end, and not its phenomenal satisfaction or fulfilment. Furthermore, the agents having such and such an end, E1, or such and such a combination of ends, E1 and E2, would be justified by showing that the agents having this end exhibits some desirable feature, such as this or that combo being harmonious. For how can one combine ones desire to smoke with ones desire to lead a healthy life? Harmony is one of the six requirements by Grice for an application of happy to the life of Smith. The buletic-doxastic souly ascription is back in business at a higher level. The suggestion would involve an appeal, in the justification of this or that end, to this or that higher-order end which would be realised by having this or that lower, or first-order end of a certain sort. Such valuation of this or that lower-order end lies within reach of a buletic-doxastic souly ascription. Grice has an important caveat at this point. This or that higher-order end involved in the defense would itself stand in need of justification, and the regress might well turn out to be vicious. One is reminded of Watson’s requirement for a thing like freedom or personal identity to overcome this or that alleged counterexample to freewill provided by H. Frankfurt. It is after the laying of a shopping list, as it were, and considerations such as those above that Grice concludes his reflection with a defense of a noumenon, complete with the inner conflict that it brings. Attention to the idea of autonomous and free leads the philosopher to the need to resolve if not dissolve the most important unsolved problem of philosophy, viz. how an agent can be, at the same time, a member of both the phenomenal world and the noumenal world, or, to settle the internal conflict between one part of our rational nature, the doxastic, even scientific, part which seems to call for the universal reign of a deterministic law and the other buletic part which insists that not merely moral responsibility but every variety of rational belief demands exemption from just such a reign. In this lecture, Grice explores freedom and value from a privileged-access incorrigible perspective rather than the creature construction genitorial justification. Axiology – v. axiological.  Refs.: The main source is The construction of value, the Carus lectures, Clarendon. But there are scattered essays on value and valuing in the Grice Papers. H. P. Grice, “Objectivity and value,” s. V, c. 8-f. 18, “The rational motivation for objective value,” s. V, c. 8-f. 19, “Value,” s. V, c. 9-f. 20; “Value, metaphysics, and teleology,” s. V, c. 9-f. 23, “Values, morals, absolutes, and the metaphysical,” s. V., c. 9-f.  24; “Value sub-systems and the Kantian problem,” s. V. c. 9-ff. 25-27; “Values and rationalism,” s. V, c. 9-f. 28; while the Carus are in the second series, in five folders, s. II, c-2, ff. 12-16, the H. P. Grice Papers, BANC.