[lit-ideas] Grice on Grice

From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2013 18:24:06 +0000
I often wake up in the middle of night havin' the nightmare that Grice made a 
mistake, somewhere on something then I read speranza and the universe sleeps 
peacefully again, since we know we have the answer to anything

________________________________________
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] on behalf 
of Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx [Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 June 2013 20:16
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Popper and Grice on Objectification

A pirot, Grice writes, a, can be said to potch of some obble x
as fanr  or feng; also to cotch of x, or some obble o AS fang or feng,
or to cotch of  sone obble o and another obble o' as being
fid to one another.

I would like to concentrate on something like a keyword like
'objectification', here, seeing that McEvoy, in his exegesis of Popper, uses
'objective', rightly and profusely.

Grice plays, in "Reply to Richards", with 'subjectification'; so I thought
the change was only natural.

Note that in the Oxford Scholarship online, the book by Grice, "The
conception of value", stresses the point about 'objective':

http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199243877.do

"The works of Paul Grice collected in this volume
present his metaphysical defence of value, and
represent a modern attempt to provide a
metaphysical foundation for value. Value
judgements are viewed as OBJECTIVE [emphasis Speranza's]; value
is part of the world we live in, but


nonetheless

is constructed by us.

We inherit, or seem to inherit, the Aristotelian world in which objects and
 creatures are characterized in terms of what they are supposed to do. We
are
thereby enabled to evaluate by reference to function and finality. This
much is not surprising. The most striking
part of Grice's position, however, is his contention
that the legitimacy of such evaluations rests
ultimately on an argument for absolute value."

So, note the subtlety:

an item is part of the world -- Grice, unlike Popper, does not need to
multiply worlds (beyond necessity?) -- YET _constructed_ (by us). An item x can
 be deemed _objective_ and yet 'constructed' as originally by
subjectivities and  inter-subjectivities.



In a message dated 6/9/2013 6:35:05 A.M. UTC-02,  donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx
writes:

"... I do not think Popper considers finitism or intuitionism as either
decisive for or against his W3 idea - for this idea arises from seeing that
knowledge may be considered in "objective" terms."

---- collocations:

objective knowledge
knowledge is objective


Grice's rephrase: 'objectification' of knowledge.

----- Note that Grice's use of the opposite, 'subjectification',  as what
Grice calls a 'metaphysical routine'.

While Popper stresses 'objective' as applied to 'know', Grice prefers a
more broader view where 'objective' applies primarily to 'value'.

STEPS towards such 'objectification', when reading Popper's prose, on the
other  hand, it seems we have to accept, as a postulate, the _result_ or
outcome of  such constructive routine.

This may be due to Popper's and Grice's different backgrounds. Since to
defend objectivity in Grice's milieu was quite a divergence with the (shall we
 say?) mainstrea
======= Please find our Email Disclaimer here-->: 
http://www.ukzn.ac.za/disclaimer =======
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 on Grice

Other related posts:
