[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 11:09:27 +0100
Let's say that we had a conference and I introduced JL by saying "This is
our man for implicatures." The connotations of this would vary with the
context; if the conference were on Grice, it might well be taken as a
compliment. (Even if not so intended) If the conference were on
metaphysics, it might not be taken as particularly complimentary. But since
JL is "our man for implicatures," I would expect him to accept that
truthful description whether it is complimentary or not.
O.K.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Well, the Chair could hardly introduce Hart as "our man in philosophy"
> since presumably everyone in a philosophy department is, or is thought to
> be, a "man in philosophy." And "Mr.Hart" is not particularly informative.
> (Names don't REALLY tell a great deal about their bearers.) Perhaps the
> Chair could have found a more suitable way of introducing him but really
> for Hart to pay much attention to this seems to be an indication of vanity.
> After all, presumably he does teach legal philosophy there, so is he
> offended because he would in fact like to teach something else ?
>
> O.K.
>
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 3/17/2015 12:55:19 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
>> The implication of saying that "Hart is a good legal philosopher" would
>> depend on, among other things, the evaluation of legal philosophy, in
>> comparison to other branches of philosophy, in that particular context.
>> What it is
>> almost certainly not about is some special, mystical quality of the word
>> "philosopher."
>>
>> Well, we are considering this in a different context. The main assumption
>> seems to be
>>
>> i. Philosophy, like virtue, is entire.
>>
>> which is the type of proposition or claim that Witters would delight in:
>> problematic. And we may need to be able to re-formulate that in terms of
>> 'philosopher'; for one thing is 'Philosophy', and another 'philosopher':
>> cfr.
>>
>> ii. Mr. Hart is a philosopher.
>>
>> iii. Mr. Hart is Philosophy.
>>
>> where (iii) would be in most cases hyperbolic, but not all: cfr.
>>
>> iv. You bought Hart?! That's Philosophy!
>>
>> So we have the presumptuous (and loquacious) Chair of the Department of
>> Philosophy uttering
>>
>> v. Meet Mr. Hart, our man in legal philosophy.
>>
>> It may not be what the Chair is *implying*, but what the addressee can
>> *infer* would be the following disjuncts:
>>
>> vi. Mr. Hart is being underdescribed, and thus maligned.
>>
>> -- for there is more to Mr. Hart than being the department's man in legal
>> philosophy.
>>
>> or
>>
>> vii. Mr. Hart is no good at legal philosophy.
>>
>> It is this (vii) which gets yielded, as joined by (i) -- Philosophy, like
>> virtue, is entire --, the implication being that a philosopher, any
>> philosopher, _simpliciter_, should be strong at metaphysics and
>> epistemology.
>> Granted, if the Chair were to introduce to an invited speaker EACH
>> member of the
>> department as
>>
>> viii. Meet Mr. Hart, our man in philosophy.
>>
>> simpliciter -- he would be repetitive and perhaps less informative than is
>> required (not to mention that he would on occasion be saying what he knew
>> to be false -- e.g. in the case of Anscombe).
>>
>> But surely he should be able to edit the utterance to the by far more
>> polite
>>
>> ix. Please meet Mr. Hart.
>>
>> and let Hart self-describe in any conversation with the invited speaker
>> that may ensue, should either be interested.
>>
>> On a positive note, then, the idea is that this is NOT dismissing legal
>> philosophy as a minor branch of philosophy, but on the other hand,
>> stressing
>> that a legal philosopher should (as the case might be) strong at
>> metaphysics
>> and epistemology (since philosophy, like virtue, is entire) and that in
>> most cases 'philosopher' simpliciter SHOULD do. Note, finally, that the
>> chair's implication seems also to be, mainly, "for the purpose of
>> teaching our
>> enrolled students", too -- for even if 'our man' happens to be merely a
>> research fellow, 'our man' is supposed to be, on occasion, available to
>> interested students -- unless he ain't.
>>
>> It's all so defeasible it almost hurts...
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Speranza
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
>>
>
>
Other related posts:
