[lit-ideas] Re: Rhetorical Grace

  • From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 19:27:18 +0100

>JTB Forever (or until shown to be false and/or uncogent).>

I admit I have overlooked the truth and cogency of the "JTB Forever" argument.


On Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 19:20, Walter C. Okshevsky <wokshevs@xxxxxx> wrote:

Is it too much to ask of this list that missives abide not only by norms of
validity and soundness but by basic rules of English grammar? 

If I want to read "sentences" of the kind Donal offers us below, I can read my
undergraduate students' mid-terms. (Which I have btw - all 43 of them. So if
I'm being a tad ornery, you know why.)

While I'm here: Ever notice that an interlocutor who has lost an argument often
refuses to let it rest? 

JTB Forever (or until shown to be false and/or uncogent).

Walter O

Quoting Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

> The law of unintended consequences may be busier than usual when Robert Paul
> posts a link to an amusing New Yorker piece on meeting Popper - a piece
> perhaps contrived to fit the gap in the market opened up by the then
> popularity of a book about the rival philosophers Wittgenstein and Popper
> (but which piece has clearly not read that book carefully enough, certainly
> not enough to see how flimsy is the forensics of its reconstruction of the
> encounter between Wittgenstein and Popper at the Moral Sciences Club, and
> which also fails to spell out the character of the "notes" on which Gopnik
> relies to relate his encounter with Popper about 25 years before [a post-it
> left on his fridge from that time?]) - only to find this link raises yet
> again the seemingly ubiquitous issue of implicatures and disimplicatures etc.
> Dnl
> Ducking down a manhole, lighting a candle
> On Tuesday, 22 July 2014, 16:27, "dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
> <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Or Grice, if you must.
> In a message dated 7/21/2014 5:19:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
> Here's the link again.
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2002/04/01/the-porcupine
> Brilliant!
> "Popperians, now and then, tend to be suspicious of Berlin, since he had  
> all the gifts Popper lacked, and, though unquestionably on the right, or 
> same,  side, let rhetorical grace do a lot of the work of hard thought."
> I wonder if that's not a typo for rhetorical Grice.
> Cfr. Popper's misuse of 'word' for 'implicature':
> Popper:
> "In contemporary philosophy there are no such problems. [...] This is owing 
> to the influence of Wittgenstein. As you know, Wittgenstein said that 
> there are  no philosophical problems, only linguistic puzzles. This has been
> the 
> predominant attitude in Britain throughout my lifetime. As a result, there 
> are  no philosophers left, real philosophers who grapple with real 
> problems. There  are only professors who worry about words."
> This is obviously a reference to Grice,
> Studies [sic in the plural] in the way of words.
> But cfr. Grice:
> "Actually there are only professors who worry about implicatures."
> It was for this reason that he thought he would change the keyword:  
> disimplicature.
> Cheers!
> Speranza
> ---
> implicature: meaning more than you say.
> disimplicature: meaning less.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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: