[hist-analytic] Clarity Is Not Enough
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Feb 15 23:55:09 EST 2009
What a volume. Still unable to check the original contents. But
contributors, with closure, appear to be:
H. H. Price
Wykeham professor of Logic, Oxford. b. Wales. "Clarity is not enough"
(originally PAS, 1945).
C. D. Broad
Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge -- views cited by Grice, 'Personal
Willard Van Orman Quine
Professor of Philosophy, Harvard -- visited Grice/Strawson while in Oxford,
but won't let pass one opportunity to publish his views against Austin!
William Calvert Kneale
Are necessary truths true by convention. Apparently his paper is.
Which is good, to elaborate what Poincare was meaning!
A. C. Ewing
Professor of Philosophy, Cambridge.
Son of a British expatriate diplomat in Russia. Very intelligent. Will
"Grice on meaning" -- later criticised by Martinich: "Black on Grice on
Professor of Philosophy, Bristol? -- wrote on Alice in Wonderland.
Apparently, born in Italy! (Firenze)
E. E. Harris
C. A Campbell
W. F. R. Hardie
Grice's tutor -- lovingly recollected in "The life and opinions of Paul
Grice". I wish all tutors were so lovingly recollected as Hardie was. Hardie
taught Grice many things, like to play golf. He was only tutor at Corpus Christi,
were Grice was the undergrad. Besides Hardying, Grice joined the Pelicans --
the Corpus Christi football team; he also found time to edit the undergrad
philo magazine, called, 'The Pelican'. Urmson published in "The Pelican" a
review of Hardie's book ever: Aristotle's Ethical Theory.
C. K. Grant
Excellent author. Obscure. Wrote "Pragmatic Implication" for _Philosophy_.
Taught at Durham, I think.
J. N. Findlay
South-African born philosopher. Very witty.
Sir Stuart Newton Hampshire,
born Lincolnshire -- did attend some of the 'playgroup' meetings, but not a
lot (he wanted to 'move on'). Was a member of an earlier playgroup that met
at Berlin's rooms in All Souls, before the war -- see Berlin, "Austin and the
early beginnings of Oxford philosophy", in "Essays on Austin", ed. Fann.
Discussed with Grice methodological issues of 'analytic philosophy' or
'linguistic philosophy' in APA symposiums. Married to Nancy Cartwright whom she met at
H. D. Lewis
A. J. Ayer
'enfant terrible' of Oxford during the 1930s, attended playgroup meetings
with Austin, Ayer, McNabb, etc in All Souls with Berlin. Left Oxford for
London, where he became Grote professor of the philosophy of mind. Came back to
Oxford with a vengeance to become Wkyeham professor of Logic. Charming fellow --
and verificationist to the day of his death!
Another thing to consider,
Price, "Clarity is not enough" ----- implicature:
but it _is_ necessary.
"Clarity is not enough, _nor_ necessary": 'leave the student with the
obscurities he wants to keep'.
If my account is too much 'student-centred', it should not be.
I do not think Price is thinking that _clarity_ *is* necessary/sufficient
analysis of a concept. But I would think that is what people like Grice would
think it is.
When Grice attempts analysis of 'I', he however notes:
"Critics may think my analysis is wrong since it hardly _clarifies_ on a
pretty intuitive notion such as "I", in fact, provides an analysans which is so
long that it reeks of _wrong_. But I think this objection is too silly to be
taken seriously. Now the next..."
Finally, Austin's rebuke reconsidered (PAS, 1956) -- repr. in Philosophical
"[Granted], clarity [may] be not enough;
but, perhaps, it will be time to go into this
when [and if -- JLS]
we are within measurable distance of achieving
clarity on some matter."
So perhaps it's not fair to see Austin's playing with 'excuses' here,
because the man was not really directing his efforts to _clarity_ there: it was a
brainstorm session, as it were, meant to show the complexity of the problems
and the thorny terrain to be dealing with.
I think Austin wanting to be 'achieving clarity on some matter' is when he
analyses, say, a speech act into
the locutionary act proper -- phatic
from the perlocutionary effect
and the illocutionary force.
That he was _not_ within measurable distance, poor chap, has been shown
inter alii by Cohen ("Do illocutionary forces exist") and in a grand manner by D.
Holdcroft (of Leeds), "Problems in the theory of speech acts".
I would think his sense and sensibilia is perhaps not too constructive or
theory-constructive. But I think there is a book by Grahame, which considers
all of Austin's substantive views on issues such as 'knowledge', 'free will',
'action', 'meaning', 'perception', etc. that shows that in the long run, he
did contribute to something like philosophical theory. Of course one has, as R.
B. Jones has, to read him sympathetically. And not like Ayer, who wrote,
"Has Austin refuted the theory of sense data?" with the wrong implicature: "Nay
-- only confused it for us a bit further"!
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
More information about the hist-analytic