[lit-ideas] Re: Mandarin Grice and his Implicatures
- From: "Donal McEvoy" <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> (Redacted sender "donalmcevoyuk" for DMARC)
- To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 8 Jul 2016 20:41:40 +0000 (UTC)
They had unimpeachable and usually unchallenged prestige, and their word was
universally praised by the other members of the group.>
As one possible instance of this group-think:-
my copy of HLA Hart's "The Concept of Law" has a review quotation on the cover
praising it on two counts - something like "it is well done and it is right".
It is at least reasonably well done but it is not clearly right - and to treat
it as such is to treat it as unimpeachable and of unchallenged prestige.
To accept Hart is right we have to accept a number of highly dubious
assumptions:(1) that we need a conceptual analysis of law (as opposed to the
view that our knowledge of law is not, in any important (epistemic) sense,
concept-dependent [the underlying issue being the role of "concepts" in
"knowledge"]; and still less is knowledge of law dependent on a "concept of
law" cf. is our scientific knowledge importantly concept-dependent? is it
dependent on a "concept" of science? [it is a fiction that scientists did their
work only having got clear their "concept" of science, and it is fiction
lawyers used the "concept" of law, in Hart's sense, before doing their work]).
(2) that there is a single "concept" of law (worth talking about)
(3) that a concept of law involves a "rule of recognition" (as opposed to the
view that such a RoR is a fiction both in terms of legal history and the
cognitive processes involved in legal processes)
(4) that a "rule of recognition" that is essentially circular can be properly
explanatory (for circular explanations are unsatisfactory to the point we might
say they are never proper explanations [as opposed to pseudo-explanations]).
A reader will search in vain within Hart's book for an adequate defence of
these dubious assumptions. They will also search in vain for an open and honest
account of the philosophical framework being deployed - one that hinges on the
value and necessity of "conceptual analysis". Yet a reviewer can confidently
tell us the book "is right" and this can be worth quoting on the jacket [cf.
Bartley's book on "Wittgenstein" which had a review quotation that it is "a
farrago of lies and poppycock"].
DonalWho managed to write this post without having performed a conceptual
analysis of what the concept of a post is
From: Luigi Speranza <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Friday, 8 July 2016, 19:18
Subject: [lit-ideas] Mandarin Grice and his Implicatures
I will rephrase, for the sake of it ("what's 'it'?" As Geary prefers), Helm's
quote on a different thread:
On Jul 8, 2016, at 12:13 PM, Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
quotes from Cantor:
In postwar Oxford philosophy, there was a small group of dons -- Austin's
Play Group --, between ten and fifteen at each Saturday morning meeting
(Grice was the brightest) which held a disproportionate power within
philosophy. They had unimpeachable and usually unchallenged prestige,
and their word was universally praised by the other members of the group. The
Play Group attracted the best-prepared, the most ambitious, and the most
industrious people ("by invitation only") and so train the stars of the next
generation (collectively known as the Post-Griceists) who follow their ideas
and interpretations unless Oedipal rebellion or a cultural revolution or a
social earthquake (for example, a Depressio) intervenes. Luckily there were
no earthquakes in Oxford. This small cohort establishes a feudal network.
When Grice travelled to Paris to buy some cheese and wine he was surprised
when he heard himself being referred to as a 'mandarin'."
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:
