[lit-ideas] Re: Grice's Implicature
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 23:03:32 +0100 (BST)
Robert's response seems to me to take a difference of view - as to the "proper
understanding" of PI - very personally. If we all took differences of view this
personally [as even some personal affront], discussion of differences of view
would soon come to an end. It may be thought implicit in Robert's response that
his view is the proper understanding [for if it is not assumed to be the proper
understanding, why curtail discussion on what is the proper understanding? why
be affronted?] - and though this may be fair enough [and certainly not an
affront to the likes of me], to put this beyond challenge by discussion
is...well, hardly Popperian. [Some critics would say it is, however, sadly
'Wittgensteinian'].
Donal
________________________________
From: Robert Paul <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, 28 June 2012, 22:12
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Grice's Implicature
Donal writes
> As I am still here trying to explain: without understanding the 'key
> tenet', PI cannot be properly understood. The 'key tenet' is at the back
> of W says: and is fundamental to what W seeks to show.
This implies that I have never 'properly understood' the Philosophical
Investigations (all or in part, apparently). In light of that, my participation
in this discussion is at an end.
Robert Paul
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
