[lit-ideas] Re: Hartiana

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2015 07:49:23 +0000 (UTC)

Physicists reading this list have long concluded that, in the multiverse, most 
parallel universes have had all trace of Grice removed, by order of God. To 
advance diversity, God wants to see what Speranza then talks about in each of 
these universes. But, according to some theorists, recent list activity has led 
God to think He must remove Hart from most of these universes as well.
God is disappointed in Mike for thinking, after 23 years, it is good enough to 
produce a philosophy but have no biscuits left. The whole point of the Wedding 
Feast at Canaan was that Christ showed it's not enough for the best man or 
rabbi to just keep yakking, to follow God's path you must make sure there's 
always refreshments.

Dnl
  


     On Monday, 23 March 2015, 22:14, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
   

 I have a couple of obsessions of my own but I try to keep them my business, as 
it were. No plans to add new ones, thanks. What 'might have been in Grice's 
mind" isn't exactly the central concern of the universe right now.
O.K.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Perhaps we can explore what Grice might have had in mind.

*Perhaps not.
O.K.
On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 9:50 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for DMARC 
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

In a message dated 3/22/2015 10:34:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
"on Grice's own stated premise that philosophy is  entire"

Perhaps we can explore what Grice might have had in mind.

Philosophy, like virtue, is entire.

What about legal philosophy?

How does legal philosophy fit in the "latitudinal" 'unity' of  philosophy?

This is a very tricky question since there are many complications among,
for example, Hart's separability thesis between morality and legality. So we
cannot, without argument, simply statte that legal philosophy is a branch
of  moral philosophy (or ethics), because it is not! And we cannot similarly
say  that legal philosophy is a branch of political philosophy, because it
is not. So perhaps Grice would have a trichotomy here:


------------------------- A. theoretical philosophy
First Philosophy
-------------------------- B. practical philosophy:
----------------------------------comprising
-----------------------------------------i. ethics or moral  philosophy.
-----------------------------------------ii. political philosophy.
-----------------------------------------iii. legal philosophy.

And the point would be to explore which are are the concepts which are
_common_ to these three branches of practical philosophy.

A second point would be to discuss whether H. L. A. Hart (who was Grice's
senior) would AGREE with any Griceian consideration on the specific locus of
 'legal philosophy' within philosophical studies at large.

A third point would be to connect legal philosophy ultimately with the
source of it all, first philosphy.

Where are the first principles of First Philosophy to come from, if not
from the operation, practised by the emblematic pelican, of lacerating its own
 breast?

And how do these first principles play a role in legal philosophy of the
type H. L. A. practiced?

If this sounds too extravagant, we may merely require a COMMON
methodological approach to all branches of philosophy, which for Grice and Hart 
 was
'linguistic botany' ("if you heard of it," Geary adds, with a biscuit
conditional*).

Cheers,

Speranza

* J. L. Austin's biscuit conditional: "If you are hungry, there are
biscuits in the cupboard."







------------------------------------------------------------------
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: