In a message dated 5/18/2010 7:33:36 A.M., donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: "At a LSE Popper lecture evening (some years ago), Prof.O'Hear criticised P for his lack of understanding of the need for society to limit its "honesty" [O'Hear was taking the ruthless search for truth by critical discussion, that underpins P's epistemology, to imply ruthless honesty in all situations - a crass implication that is not drawn in Popper's own work afaik]. O'Hear's remarks smacked of the kind of Wittgensteinian critique of P's advocacy of (unfortunately termed) "social engineering" that was put forward by Peter Winch, and was similarly misguided and fatuous." Oddly, I think O'Hear is a genius. That should not surprise me, since I have a systematic tendency to admire all the philosophers that McEvoy despises! --- O'Hear criticised early enough in Grice's career Grice's career! But he failed! Abstract for O'Hair's "Implication" essay in Theoria (1969): "IN MANY CASES, UTTERANCES CONTAINING A CERTAIN WORD OFTEN OR USUALLY INVOLVE A CERTAIN IMPLICATION. IS THIS PART OF THE MEANING OF THE WORD? GRICE'S SUGGESTION THAT SUCH IMPLICATIONS ARE TO BE EXPLAINED AS DUE, NOT TO THE MEANING OF THE PARTICULAR WORD, BUT TO SOME GENERAL RULE GOVERNING CONVERSATION IS EXAMINED. GRICE'S TENTATIVE FORMULATION OF SUCH A RULE IS DISCUSSED, AND IT IS ARGUED THAT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED BY TWO SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT RULES, ONE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE CONTENT OF WHAT IS SAID, THE OTHER CONCERNED ALSO WITH THE WORDS UTTERED. SOME QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE STATUS OF SUCH RULES ARE INVESTIGATED BRIEFLY." J. L. Speranza --- Courtesy of the Grice Club. ----- Bordighera. (I know, 'despise' is a strong verb, and unfair to McEvoy's charitable nature!) ------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html