[hist-analytic] In Defense of an Underdogma

Jlsperanza at aol.com Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Feb 1 20:36:17 EST 2009

--- I think this way it's edited for the  better.
And the original reference is from Grice, "Meaning Revisited"  (originally in 
N. Smith, "Mutual Knowledge", Academic Press, 1981), repr. in WOW  (Way of 
Words). JLS

Now Dan Frederick will think if he can defend the  topdog.

A lot of Quine's humor comes from this 'article of faith' thing  --. Indeed, 
if Empiricism is like a credo, it _should_ have a few articles of  faith. So 
one is not sure how the 'metaphor' works there. Empiricism without  Dogmas? 
It's like Husserl's "Philosophy Without Presuppositions". 

As an  Anglican, I cannot say. Grice was sometimes confused about dogmas. He 
said (WOW,  iii) that he remains an Anglican C. of E., and he is committed to 
the 31  Articles, even if he doesn't know what they mean or say...

"In defense of  the underdogma" rather than "an underdogma", I realise, 
sounds better, and I  think that's the way Grice uses in "Meaning Revisited" above 
and not necessarily  in reference to his 1956 joint article.



**************Great Deals on Dell Laptops. Starting at $499. 

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list