[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 15:00:16 +0100
Quite on the contrary, on the assumption that philosophy is an entire
virtue, saying that someone is good at one discipline of philosophy implies
that he is good at all of them. Such an implication would not hold on the
assumption that the various branches of philosophy are separate, although
even then an OPPOSITE implication would not hold. (It would just remain
unspecified whether he is good at other branches of philosophy or not.)
Either way the supposed 'implicature' does not obtain.
O.K.
On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In a message dated 3/22/2015 9:03:36 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> surely Mr. Whoever should have felt complimented that he was described as
> "our man in legal philosophy" because that would imply that he was a man
> in
> philosophy ?
>
> Right. But we seem to be forgetting the extra hint:
>
> By uttering "our man in legal philosophy" the attendant inference is that
> the 'man' is "not good" at philosophy. And this makes sense if and only if,
> philosophy, like virtue, is entire.
>
> I agree with the sentiment that philosophy, like virtue, is entire. If I am
> introduced to "our man in legal philosophy" then I think one is entitled
> to expect from "our man in legal philosophy" an answer to ALL
> philosophical
> questions, even if they are: "I don't know". The blame is NOT, surely, on
> "our man in legal philosophy", but to the Department chair who chooses to
> describe "our man in legal philosophy" as "our man in legal philosophy",
> rather than, say, "Mr. Hart".
>
> Again, let us be reminded that there is no Department of Philosophy as such
> at Oxford, but a whole Faculty, so that would be the chair of the
> Philosophy Faculty -- a big chair, too!
>
> It's different with the SECRETARY to the chair of the Philosophy Faculty:
>
> Oxonian philosophy student: I would like to leave a message for Mr. Hart.
> Secretary: Our man in legal philosophy!
> Oxonian philosophy student: Whatever. Philosophy, like virtue, is entire!
>
> (slightly paraphrased)
>
> "When I visit an unfamiliar university and (as it occasionally happens) I
> am introduced, "This is Dr. Puddle, our man in Legal Philosophy, my
> inference is actually of the disjunctive form: I come to believe either
> (a) that
> the utterer is underdescribing (and thus maligning) Dr. Puddle, or (b)
> that
> Dr. Puddle is not really good at Legal Philosophy." For there is no way a
> legal philosopher can keep answering, "I don't know" to crucial questions
> in metaphysics and the theory of knowledge and ethics (surely the central
> branches of philosophy) and still be regarded as a _philosopher_
> simpliciter.
>
> The issue with Hart was trickier as when he was about to be elected as
> Principal of Hertford (that is nice, the principal of Hertford surnamed
> Hart --
> "Hertford" is pronounced "Hartford") and described as a non-Anglican
> lawyer. Macmillan told that to Hart himself without knowing that the
> non-Anglican lawyer he was referring to was Hart himself! The emphasis
> was on
> "non-Anglican" and as Macmillan expressed Hart (without realising,
> sillily, that
> Hart was the "non-Anglican lawyer" the college soon found out a sort of
> 'legal' -- it has to do with a 'law' of Hertford -- or 'rule' if you must
> --
> that the principal had to live in the premises of Hertford, and the
> governing
> body ASSUMED that Hart would rather NOT, since it would mean to abandon
> the
> rather nice house he was actually living in!
>
> Dr. Puddle does not compare to Hart since Hart was a good legal philosopher
> -- and therefore, a good philosopher.
>
> In fact, most philosophers prefer Hart's writing on non-legal issues, such
> as his "Ascription" essay and his "Decision, Intention and Certainty"
> co-written with Hampshire.
>
> Oxonian usage distinguishes "legal philosopher" (such as Hart was), "legal
> thinker" and "jurisprudentialist". And it is often assumed (and rightly
> too) that Hart produced essays qua philosopher (since he philosophised),
> and
> not a jurisprudentialist -- while 'legal thinker' necessitates a
> conceptual
> analysis of what thinking is!
>
> (Recall that before becoming Professor of Jurisprudence, Hart was
> philosophy don at Oxford _for years_.)
>
> Cheers,
>
> Speranza
>
> Ryle, "On Thinking".
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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:
