[lit-ideas] Re: Logical Corpuscularism

  • From: "" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "Jlsperanza" for DMARC)
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 16:14:32 -0400

As D. F. Pears, there are two types of atomicity: relative (that Russell
preferred, relatively speaking) and absolute, that Grice constructed out of
the relative one.

So, it is no hyperbole to say that Grice was the greatest corpuscularian of
all (where 'greatest' does not, of course, apply to the corpuscules
themselves, which, by definition, are always small).

In Griceian philosophy, corpuscularianism, perhaps in a less intolerably
clear fashion than in Russell, is tied to 'analysis', and conceptual at that.
If you can keep providing a conceptual analysis of x1, into x2 and x3, and
then further provide an analysis of x2 into x4 and x5, and so on... you
are left with the ultimate residues which are the real corpuscules. For Grice
this is the result of the annals of analysis.

In dealing with philosophical psychology -- for ultimately, it all resolves
around 'psychologia rationalis', Grice proposes two types of operators,
OpA and OpB.

The operators grouped together as OpB can be divided into two types: OpB1
and OpB2.

A-type operators, on the other hand, represent some degree or measure of
acceptability or justification.

They can take scope over either of the B-type operators, yielding OpA1 + p
for an expression like:

i. It is probable that p.

and OpA1 + OpB2+ ! + p

for an expression like

ii. It is desirable that p.

Generalising over attitudes Grice proposes

iii. X psi-1 p.

or "believes" and

iv. X psi-2 p.

for "wants".

Psi-3 is concerned with an attitude of deciding whether to believe p or
not, while psi-4 with want to decide whether to will p or not.

Grice also suggest that we introduce, if we seriously are into serious
corpuscular anlaysis, an operator

"OpIS"

corresponding to ANY particular propositional attitude psi-3, where ā€˜Iā€™ is
a dummy taking the place of either 1,2,3,or 4, and where ā€˜Sā€™ is a dummy
taking the place of either A or B.

In this way, we can keep the philosophical discourse at the desirable level
of generality that Witters, unwittingly, said philosophers crave for (his
implicature was that they shouldn't) --.

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: