[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.
Dnl
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
MUN
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:
