[lit-ideas] Re: Ungriceful Grice
- From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 18:39:43 +0100 (BST)
>"[Popper] is capable of combining high moral seriousness with impopper
humour: not many philosophers would devote a footnote entirely to the
following:
fn.8 to "The Autonomy of Sociology" - "I wish to apologize to the Kantians for
mentioning them in the same breath as the Hegelians""
One wonders if at the implicature level, this impopper repartee by Popper
does not, in the 'end', yet exhibit the great moral seriousness he is accused
of.>
Some would say this "yet exhibit" is already prefigured in the term
"combining", which may be understood so that something is simultaneously this
"yet" that.
Donal
Fallen from Grice
On Wednesday, 23 October 2013, 14:27, "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx>
wrote:
We were wondering at some of the definitions by Dennett in his
"Philosophical Lexicon". We know what a grice note is -- a good pun on what
musicians call a 'grace note' -- an explanation that may ruin the pun. And one
wonders about Dennett:
http://www.philosophicallexicon.com/#P
"grice, n. Conceptual intricacy. "His examination of Hume is
distinguished by erudition and grice." Hence, griceful, adj. and
griceless, adj. "An obvious and griceless polemic." pl. grouse: A
multiplicity of grice, fragmenting into great details, often in reply to
an original grice note."
So one wonders about, 'that was a griceless commentary by Grice'. I would
hold such remarks as contradictory. Cfr. 'popper noam'.
On the other hand, trading on
"popper, adj. Exhibiting great moral seriousness; impopper,
frivolous."
McEvoy ventures, in "Popper and impopper":
"[Popper] is capable of combining high moral seriousness with impopper
humour: not many philosophers would devote a footnote entirely to the
following:
fn.8 to "The Autonomy of Sociology" - "I wish to apologize to the Kantians for
mentioning them in the same breath as the Hegelians""
One wonders if at the implicature level, this impopper repartee by Popper
does not, in the 'end', yet exhibit the great moral seriousness he is accused
of.
In Popper's defense, it may be argued that 'im-' (as in 'impopper') is not
always negative.
As I read in "Etymology Online":
---
in-, element meaning "into, in, on, upon" (also im-, il-, ir- by assimilation
of -n- with
following consonant), from Latin in- "in" (see in).
In Old French this often became en-, which usually
was respelled in English to conform with Latin, but not always, which accounts
for pairs like enquire/inquire. There was a native
form, which in West Saxon usually appeared as on- (cf. Old English onliehtan
"to enlighten"), and some
verbs survived into Middle English (cf. inwrite "to
inscribe"), but all now seem to be extinct.
Not related to in- (1) "not," which also was a common prefix in Latin: to
the Romans impressus could mean "pressed" or
"unpressed."
----
And so on.
Cheers,
Speranza
Other related posts:
