[lit-ideas] grice who was a purveyor of lotion for hair growth
- From: "Adriano Palma" <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 15:10:01 +0200
** Low Priority **
** Reply Requested by 6/13/2012 (Wednesday) **
grice who was a purveyor of lotion for hair growth
failed to notice the obvious (I have no idea of the opinion of the historical
Paul Grice)
in order to know that p x has (or has to have for those who like norms) a
belief that p, a justification of the belief, and p is true
why on earth would someone need a "theory of knowledge" some brain damaged
concern of some epistemic form according to which one need the justification of
the justification (how else does one knows that knows etc.?
the point has been established about 50 years ago, why the great oppositin to
thinking/
>>> <Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx> 13/06/2012 02:39 PM >>>
Palma thinks that perception offers a counterexample to Hintikka's theorem:
If x knows that p, x knows that he knows that p.
--- He must having hallucinations in mind (not in Palma's mind, but in x's
mind).
We are discussing McEvoy's claim that a theory of truth is INSUFFICIENT
(he does not say _for what_). McEvoy grants that a theory of truth need NOT
be a theory of 'knowledge'. He even uses 'decide' as synonym for 'know'. The
point seems to be that Tarski offers a theory of truth alla Grice (to use
Grice's example):
"Smith is happy" is true iff Smith is happy.
But fails to provide us with an algorithm or decision procedure ('a theory
of knowledge', in McEvoy's grand phrase) regarding "Smith is happy" itself.
Indeed, Grice wrote an essay, on "Happiness" and he provides SIX necessary
and sufficient conditions for "happy". Provided with have encapsulated who
Smith is, we may want to decide if "Smith is happy" is true after having
read Grice (or Aristotle, for that matter -- Grice quotes from his student J.
L. Ackrill on "Aristotle on happiness".
Palma adds:
In a message dated 6/13/2012 5:02:33 A.M. UTC-02, Palma@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
that kap entails KKap is false (look at perception)
----
We are considering Grice's claim:
Grice KNOWS that Smith is happy.
This entails, for McEvoy, the simpler (or is it more complex?)
Grice knows that it is true that Smith is happy (Note that Grice, like me,
avoids quotes, which Tarski overused).
----
Enns similarly made the remark that truth is a precondition of language. I
disagree: TRUST is a precondition of appropriate conversational moves. The
category Grice calls, ironically, QUALITY.
Do not say what you believe to be false (the first conversational maxim
falling one of the four categories -- the others, echoing Kant, being
naturally QUANTITY, RELATION, and MODE.
---
But as B. Williams and others (unlike Apel) have noted, it's
"be trustworthy!"
the maxim operating. And 'trust' does not really relate to 'truth'. One
can be trustworthy even if one keeps uttering falsities.
In a recent essay in NYT, S. Hawkins disagrees with correspondence being
the criterion for truth. And indeed, to quote from R. Paul (quoting Hobbes),
'true' can be pretty vacuous --.
It is true that there are a few correspondences at play. Regarding two
communicating creatures we have at least six correspondences:
On the part of the communicator, we have a correspondence between the
facts and his thoughts ("It is raining"). Then we have a correspondence
between
his thoughts and his utterance, "It is raining".
Similarly, on the part of the communicatee, the reasoning goes from
the utterance, "It is raining" as heard -- the implication that the
utterer BELIEVES that it is true that it is raining.
-- and second, from the belief on the part of the communicatee that the
communicator believes what he says (and that the communicatee trusts the
communicator) to the formation of the belief on the part of the communicatee
that it is raining (never mind true).
In these correspondences, there's nothing like a theory of truth (never
mind knowledge) presupposing anything --. It's just a plain Griceian picture.
To get a theory of truth or knowledge we must build it step by step from a
previous, more basic, theory of communication, alla Grice, of course.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Please find our Email Disclaimer here: http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer/
Other related posts:
