[lit-ideas] Grice and the Anti-Philosopher

From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2013 21:57:01 -0400 (EDT)
Language: Weak or Strong?
 
Leavis: Cambridge vs Oxford: philosophers "always weak in dealing with  
language"

In a message dated 9/17/2013 8:49:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight  Time, 
lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx quotes from Leavis and his polemic with M.  Greene:
 
Leavis writes:
 
"I should add of course (and underline) to Marjorie Grene’s list of  
disciplines the discipline of thought that belongs to intelligent literary 
study  –
 philosophers are always weak in dealing with language.  My own  
preoccupation is not focused for any intellectual realm or specialist 
discipline  such 
as the word ‘philosophy’ suggests – though Marjorie Grene herself 
intimates  that the revolution she has in mind must involve very much more than 
 
philosophy." ("Justifying One's Valuations of Blake", in "The Critic as  
Anti-Philosopher"). 

Helm comments:
 
"Leavis jumped back into Blake before I could figure out what his reference 
 to Grene entailed, but I do wonder what you, J.L., might say in response 
to  Leavis’s denigration of philosophers as being “weak in dealing with  
language.”"
 
My answer as per ps!
 
It involves Grice!
 
Cheers,
 
Speranza
 
---
 
I'm not sure I understand the context.

But the wiki says this below re: Leavis:
 
"His father, Harry Leavis, a cultured man, ran a small shop in Cambridge  
which sold pianos and other musical instruments (Hayman 1), and his son was 
to  retain a respect for him throughout his life. Frank Leavis was educated 
at a  local fee-paying independent school, The Perse School, whose headmaster 
at the  time was Dr. W. H. D. Rouse. Rouse was a classicist and known for 
his "direct  method," a practice which required teachers to carry on 
classroom conversations  with their pupils in Latin and classical Greek. Though 
he 
had some fluency in  foreign languages, Leavis felt that his native language 
was the only one on  which he was able to speak with authority. His 
extensive reading in the  classical languages is not therefore strongly evident 
in 
his critical  publications."
 
I would identify that as _very_ Cambridge.
 
Re: Grene, wiki is not too expansive. Notes that she was née Glicksman --  
and that "her first degree was in zoology, from Wellesley College; she then  
received a doctorate in philosophy from Harvard University (Radcliffe 
College).  She studied with Martin Heidegger and Karl Jaspers, leaving Germany 
in 
1933.  From 1938 to 1961, she was married to David Grene, a classicist who 
also farmed  in Illinois."
 
So, I'm not sure Leavis is taking into account those philosophers  
(typically Oxonian) who were _pretty_ strong in dealing with language?
 
--- I refer to J. L. Austin's group to which H. P. Grice belonged: the  
"Saturday morning" group -- or Play Group of Philosophers of Ordinary  Language.
 
Yet, the label 'weak' may be weak. And 'strong' strong. Grice -- was he  
'weak' in dealing with language? How can Leavis use a 'universal  
quantification', as philosophers call it, like 'always', so rather freely?
 
And I would think that perhaps Grice is rightly _weak_ in dealing with  
lingo. For his interest is the type of 'implication' which is not strong, since 
 it's cancellable.
 
E.g. "Some philosophers are weak in dealing with language" IMPLIES (but  
does not entail) that "some are not". And so on.
 
Leavis seems to be defending what Oxonians call "Lit. Crit." 
"I should add of course (and underline) to Marjorie Grene’s list of  
disciplines the discipline of thought that belongs to intelligent literary 
study  –
 philosophers are always weak in dealing with language.  My own  
preoccupation is not focused for any intellectual realm or specialist 
discipline  such 
as the word ‘philosophy’ suggests – though Marjorie Grene herself 
intimates  that the revolution she has in mind must involve very much more than 
 
philosophy." ("Justifying One's Valuations of Blake", in "The Critic as  
Anti-Philosopher"). 
 
The fact that he sees the critic as 'anti-philosopher' is telling. For I  
think it's Witters (a Cambridge philosopher who was pretty strong in dealing  
with language) would say that even the anti-philosopher is a philosopher.
 
And so on.
 
 
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
[lit-ideas] Grice and the Anti-Philosopher

Other related posts:
