Do not multiply αρχές beyond necessity!

-- by J. L. Speranza
----- for the Grice Circle.

We are discussing Grice's choice of 'principle' in things like "cooperative principle". The earlier (by 3 years) Grice had used "principle of self-love" and "principle of benevolence", and the later Grice ('Reply to Richards', 1986, and 'Actions and Events', 1986) "P.E.R.E." (principle of economy of rational effort), and "Bootstrap" (principle) -- "a principle whose validity I never proved" -- how to pull oneself by one's own bootstraps.

Jones righly chasistes me for the mistake of aequivocality.

As one reads at:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%B1%CF%81%CF%87%CE%AE

αρχή, noun, feminine.
origin, beginning; principle; authority; government, authorities (as plural)

---- To consider: in numbering of usages, which is what you get when you visit the site (as opposed, as when I just did, just paste it):


αρχή

1. origin, beginning
2. principle
3. authority
4. government authorities (as plural)


Surely we don't need to multiply "arches" beyond necessity, so what is the 'problem' or 'issue' here?

Let's see. I have no idea where that ugly root, 'arkh-', originates, and I distrust feminine nouns in general (for some irrational reason) and ABSTRACT feminine nouns in particular (I am more at home with Latin neuter principium here). So let's speculate.

The ORIGINAL sense (what the Greeks rightly called 'etymon') must have been 'beginning', as in 'start-finish'. This seems like a basic concept and there's no reason why the Greeks lacked it. Any use of 'arkhe' in this original use to refer to eternity and timelessness is thus totally fallacious.

But we have:

from

1. origin, beginning

to

2. principle
3. authority
4. government authorities (as plural)

---- How do we get there. For '2' (arkhe, principium) I propose the translation test. Use 'axioma' instead! Thus Principia Mathematica, Principia Ethica (Moore). "More geometrico demonstrata". This must be the Euclid's usage that many(and I'm sure Jones will) relate to Aristotle. (He is the expert on 'demonstrative inference, aka deduction).

But he is an anarcho capitalist. So how do we get from 1 to

3. authority
4. government, authorities (as plural)

?

---- Not really difficult.

There is something Roman about 'authority' that is even Gricean about it. Augere was to do, and the author is the one who does. So there is nothing to fear about 'auctoritas' as such. Is the author. The author is the authority. So the anarchist has to explain why he fears or abhors her ('auctoritas' is feminine in Roman!). I speak of 'abhor' to refer to the 'phobia' if phobia it is. Surely it can't be something as irrational as that in Jones's case, so I'm using the label hyperbolically in some cases -- cfr. arachnophobia.

Indeed, Jones is right -- in spite, I would think, to Helm's emphasis on HIS focus of 'anarchy' to refer to authors like Sartre and his ilk -- that it is THIS use of 'archy' that underlies things like 'anarchy' -- lack of government, rather than order!

My point in my "Liberalism" paper for Jabberwocky: the Journal of the Lewis Carroll Society (Luton, Beds.) however was to take Locke seriously! I was using arguments put forward by Bennett in his study of Locke and the empiricists in general. Bennett is NOT a political philosopher, but still! Bennett makes a subtle point about Locke's philosophy of language in general -- beginning of Book, "The Way of Words", "The Way of Ideas" -- this is all in Jones's web site. He has uploaded, genially, the genial treatise by Locke.

For Locke, there is a LIBERTY here. An 'involable liberty' in fact, 3.2.1. -- as I recall. This is LIBERALISM, or libertarianism (recall that Sartre, in the interview, confesses he is a libertarian at heart -- "one is condemned to be free", as it were).

So, where does 'government' (archy) spring from? I would agree (for once!) with Thatcher! There are individuals and there are families (!), but there's no Society, and let so, Goverment. This is an ABSTRACTION. Cfr. the "State", though. As Helm notes, our secular state has ensured for us all the maxims that count, so it Kant be despised freely!

When we say 'abstraction', we mean that, ontologically, there's spatio-temporal continuants which we call 'individuals'. The phrase is philosophical and abstract, but used in political philosophy so loosely that it hurts! So, in what way does the anarchist diverge from the liberal?

For the anarchist, in Jones's reading, there is just voluntary cooperation between individuals. From this chaos, like magic, all that is good emerges (his wording). And for the wicked liberal? Do we need to postulate an abstract entity, like some sort of 'arkhe', now understood as 'authorities' (plural), or government? The liberal thinks we SHOULD. For man is a wolf for man (as Locke's predecessor noted) and we don't want no Oliver Cromwell no more! So the need for the Leviathan! The individuals rely on this abstract entity whose only job -- for surely one is an ontological marxist -- alla Grice, and, entities are only postulated according to, 'they work; therefore, they exist' -- is to ensure that no individual freedom (or freedom of each individual) be violated! Or so it seems!