[lit-ideas] Re: "Hack"
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2004 14:31:53 EST
I wrote:
>Grice used to say he was a 'hack', in 'Reply to Richards'.
---
The reference is:
"It is indeed worth remarking that the exhaustive examination of linguistic
phenomena was not, as a matter of fact, originally brought in as part of a
_direct_ approach to philosophy. [Saturday morning Play group leader Oxford
philosophy J. L.] Austin's expressed view (the formulation of which no doubt
involved some irony) was that we 'philosophical hacks' spent the week making,
for the benefit of our pupils [tutees -- or for studies studies studants --
JLS], direct attacks on philosophical issues, and that we needed to be
refreshed, at the week-end, by some suitably chosen 'para-philosophy' in which
certain
non-philosophical conceptions were to be examined with the full rigour of
the Austinian Code, with a view to an ultimate analogical pay-off (liable
never
to be reached) in philosophical currency." (Reply to Richards, p. 51).
-- It was only the Saturday _morning_, though, and you could _always_ take
the train (or car) to London at noon or the afternoon for more refreshment I
suppose (never mind Chelthenham or the coast).
Cheers,
JL
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
