[lit-ideas] : Hartiana

  • From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2015 06:48:54 +0000

Consider he blew grice and blew his nose at the same time. Is that a pragmatic 
contradiction? Breach of maxim? Hiding the truth?

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 17 March 2015 02:08
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana

He cooked a meal carefully.
He made the calculation carefully.
In a message dated 3/16/2015 6:15:58 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx quotes:

"In the "Retrospective Epilogue" to WoW (Way  of Words), Grice speaks of 
Athenian dialectics, which he compares to Oxonian  dialectics. He does not 
mention H. L. Hart, but he should!
Mmm. Let me check. Hart is quoted only ONCE in WoW (Way of Words), on p.  7:
"It seems a plausible suggestion," Grice says, "that part of what is required 
in order that A may be correctly said to have performed some operation (a 
calculation, the cooking of a meal) carefully is that A should have been 
receptive to (on alert for) circumstances in which the the venture might go  
astray (fail to reach the desired outcome), and that he should manifest, in 
such  circumstances, a dispositon to take steps to maintain the course towards 
such an  outcome. l have heard it maintained by H. L. A. Hart that such a 
condition as I  have stated it is insufficient; that there is a further 
requirement, namely  namely that the steps taken by the performer should be 
reasonable, individually  and collectively."
So, Grice is slightly having the cheek, as we might say, to quote an 
'unpublication' by Hart. Strictly, Grice says that he as "heard it maintained 
by Hart". This is in 1967, at Harvard, where Hart had lectured a decade 
But if you think of it ("or even if you don't," as Geary writes), back in
1952 (in the review to J. Holloway's "Language and Intelligence"), Hart was 
citing an unpublication by Grice, and we have Hart having heard it maintained 
by  Grice that smoke means fire. So perhaps that is what Brits call 'tit for  
Grice does NOT list Hart when he lists the members of the Play Group in 
"Prejudices and Predilections". The most senior philosopher he mentions is 
Austin, and we know that Hart was Austin's senior; so perhaps Grice as 
following  Austin's unwritten rule that nobody who was a senior to Austin could 
be officially part of the Play Group) 
In any case, my reference was having two other keywords in mind: Oxonian 
dialectics, that some thought sound presumptuous on Grice, as a development 
straight from Athenian dialectics. Grice's meaning is that both in Athens and 
in  Oxford, they were ALWAYS submitting EACH ITEM of the vocabulary to 
'conceptual  analysis', whereas in Rome, things were DIFFERENT. Granted, Cato, 
who had  Carneades back in Athens, later became more of a hellenophile, if 
that's the  word -- and actually would eventually enjoy reading stuff in Greek. 
He famously  criticised Albinus, and rightly so, for Albinus's apologising in 
his "Preface"  to his "History" "for any mistakes I might make in Greek, not my 
native tongue".  Cato took the implicature of this being that Albinus was 
rather apologising for  being Roman!
That famous Wednesday of 155 B. C. Carneades gave a lecture that Cato heard, 
commending the virtues of Roman 'justice'. On Thursday, however, Carneades 
delivered the second lecture (part of a series of two). The topic  was
again: "Roman justice". ALL the arguments Carneades had made  on the previous 
day were refuted, in a very Grecian manner, as he  persuasively attempted to 
prove that the very idea of Roman "justice" --  remember that the Greeks were 
subject to the Romans then -- was "inevitably  problematic" (where the problems 
were perhaps without a solutioj), and hardly "a  given" when it came to virtue, 
but "merely a compact device deemed  necessary for the maintenance of a  
well-ordered society". 
Cato was rapid in recognizing the potential danger  of Carneades's 
'conceptual-analysis' of 'justice': the had provided  a positive valuation on 
Wednesday and a negative valuation on Thursday  (and no new law had been 
introduced in the interim -- but, laws, as you  know, always change for the 
Cato was shocked.
He immediately moved the Roman Senate to send Carneades home to Athens -- where 
what Grice calls "Athenian dialectic" thrived), to prevent the Roman citizenry 
from the threat of re-examining all Roman doctrines, and notably the  dangers 
that a 'conceptual analysis' on the law could bring. This was all  changed by 
Cicero, who took good care in translating all useful Greek philosophical 
terminolgy, until he was assassinated by the guards sent by Marcantonio. But 
that's the commings and goings of Roman philosophy of law, for  you!
Hart was a conceptual analyst. He was delighted to deal with tautologies, or 
alleged tautologies, like
i. Law is just.
Hart had learned for his Classics degree at Oxford: "Lex iniusta non est lex" 
(An unjust law is no law at all"), as uttered, perhaps with a disimpicature  in 
mind, by Augustine (Hart didn't call him a saint).
Hart's brilliant conceptual analyses were very influential. 
Thus, F. Schauer tested his students:
I. Is the Common Law Law?
He gave his students a multiple choice:
i. The Common law is law.
ii. The Common law is not law.
Those students who chose for (ii) were asked to provide a justification in 
terms of disimplicatures alla Hart. And some did it brilliantly!

To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest 
on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

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: