[lit-ideas] Re: Linguistic Botany
- From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2015 14:55:25 +0200
I think that I can hardly do better here than post a link to Russell's
essay THE CULT OF ' COMMON USAGE '. (If I start quoting from it I might
well end up quoting the whole piece.)
http://www.sfu.ca/~jeffpell/Phil467/RussellOrdLang53.pdf
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> My last post today!
>
> In a message dated 3/30/2015 4:50:50 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx writes:
> Wouldn't it be more illuminating, when trying to do legal philosophy, to
> engage with legal language and how it is actually used in the legal
> process?
> Nobody cares about Hart's ... "linguistic intuitions."
>
> I was trying to trace, historically, as it were, the methodology behind an
> approach like Hart, as I conceive it as derived from J. L. Austin, and
> ultimately Epicurus:
>
> Epicurus is having, not 'law' in mind but 'time': "We must take into
> account the plain fact itself, in virtue of which WE SPEAK OF TIME as long
> or
> short, linking to it in intimate connection this attribute of duration. We
> SHOULD NOT adopt any FRESH, rather than the simple terms of ordinary
> language as preferable. We should always employ the usual expressions
> about
> stuff. And by 'usual' I mean "ordinary". Nor need we predicate anything
> else of
> time, as if this something else contained the same essence as is
> contained in the proper meaning of the word “ time” (for this also is
> done by
> some). For we should not deviate from ordinary language as expressed in
> ordinary usage."
>
> For J. L. Austin, H. L. Hart, and others, this was a starting point.
> Evidence that J. L. Austin started with linguistic botany but ended up in
> theory
> is evident when considering all the slightly kryptotechnical terminology he
> ends up with: 'phatic' act, 'phemic' act, 'rhetic' act, 'perlocution' (to
> cover the ordinary-language verb "persuade"), 'illocution' (to cover the
> ordinary-language verb 'convince'), and so on.
>
> Hart is, to some, fortunately never so krypto-technical!
>
> 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:
