[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana
- From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx" for DMARC)
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 10:21:43 -0400
My last post today!
There is only one problem in philosophy: namely all of them.
How would Lord Russell go on to formalise that? (Recall Grice as quoted in
D. F. Pears's obituary: "If you cannot put it in symbols it's not worth
saying it at all!" -- his reprimand to Strawson).
In a message dated 3/22/2015 10:00:21 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes: "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."
I'm not sure we should talk about implicature here or disimplicature for
that matter. For we don't have to assume that the utterer INTENDED the
inference to be drawn, which is a necessary condition for the thing to count
as
an implicature (or disimplicature: intentionally saying less than one
means).
An implicature is not like a baby. An unwanted baby is still a baby. An
unwanted implicature is a 'contradictio in terms'! (It's perhaps more like a
plastic flower, which is not a flower, of course).
I am introduced:
"This is Dr. Puddle, our man in Legal Philosophy"
"my inference"
which does not mean that the utterer IS implicating -- poor thing, he
possibly ain't --
"is actually of the disjunctive form."
"I come to believe either (a) or (b)."
(a) that the utterer is underdescribing (and thus maligning) Dr. Puddle."
It may make the world of difference if I meet Dr. Puddle and _he_ says:
"I'm their man at legal philosopher."
which would be presumptuous, on the face of it, but ultimately perhaps
self-derogatory (seeing that philosophy, like virtue, is entire).
(b) Dr. Puddle is not really good at _Legal Philosophy_.
Because by describing Puddle as "our man in legal philosophy" the utterer
is stressing what the utterer sees as the _essence_ of Puddle, or his
utility in the Faculty. And a GOOD legal philosopher needs to be a good
metaphysician, a good epistemologist, and a good ethicist.
IF this is considered an 'implicature' (or a 'disimplicature') there may
ways of cancelling it:
"This is Dr. Puddle: our man in legal philosophy; I don't mean to imply
that he is bad at all other branches, you know. Right, Dr. Puddle?"
This may be as it is, but Grice is doubtful that THAT is an efficient
cancellation.
Grice recalled Warnock telling him at Collections, about a tutee:
"He has beautiful handwriting".
Grice remained silent for a while.
Warnock continued, inferring from Grice's silence that Warnock's comment
was abrupt.
Warnock went on to say:
"Of course I do not mean to imply that he is hopeless at philosophy".
Grice has a sad note to this: Warnock MAY no longer be said to have
'implicated' that his tutee was hopeless at philosophy, "even if", Grice goes
on,
cancellation at all, "this is all I will end up believing".
Cheers,
Speranza
* Philosophy, like virtue, is entire. There is only one problem in
philosophy: namely all of them.
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
