[hist-analytic] Anscombe cited by Grice -- twice

steve bayne baynesrb at yahoo.com
Wed Jul 15 07:24:56 EDT 2009


Thanks for this JL. I'm having trouble catching up on email. 
I'm finding it more and more interesting that there is little
or no published connection between Grice and Anscombe.

I notice that Hampshire is a "yes" and Anscombe a "no."
Further I notice that Ayer is not mentioned. Somewhere
Ayer said that Anscombe's work was the best thing to come
out of the work of the later Wittgenstein. For the life of me
I cannot find that quote! 

Ayer spent a considerable amount of time "chasing" women.
I think it was Ryle who suggested the cost to him was
greatness in philosophy. Moreover, although I'd have to check,
his came between Ayer and Hamphire at one point. Clearly,
they did not get along. (_Ayer: A Life_ by Ben Rogers.
Grove, 1999, p. 260. Ayer believed he was better at philosophy.
But here is the point: Hampshire's work _Thought and Action_
while not eclipsed by Anscombe did not survive criticism as
well. Davidson is involved in this. They (Anscombe and Hampshire)
both published on intention. Frankly, I am impatient as I 
read through Hampshire's book. It's just not as deep. Anscombe
is, oddly (perhaps) more like Austin in some ways.

I've been falling behind in my posting and replies (apologies to
Danny until I can get my act together). One reason is that
I'm concluding the chapters relating to singularist theories of
causation. This take a very interesting turn with respect to the
place of counterfactuals. One argument against Hume has been
based on a Humean's alleged inability to accommodate a 
semantics for subjunctives and counterfactuals; but in the 
absence of laws of some sort the whole rationale for such a
semantics, that is as being required to account for 'cause'
get knocked around a bit, or worse. Once you embrace
singularist theories of causation a new light is shed on
"agent causation." I'm still exploring the implications here,
so I'm sort of busy; these are the last few pages of the 
book. I'm finding Braithwaite a terrific way to approach 
Goodman's 'grue' etc. At first he and Goodman look totally
out of sink with one another, but their "solutions" are
strangely similar. Some will see this as tangent to the 
Anscombe issues. I think not.

Don't feel bad about offending Anscombe. She once wrote a
dreadful little note to a student. That exchange became
an oft reported incident among people "in the know." It was
never discussed in publication. I happened to have known the
student, who described the incident to me when it occurs.
After years of having to weigh my opinion on Anscombe
against this incident I've finally softened a bit on her, but
not entirely. The student died shortly thereafter. I tell that story
and one other. The other is a tempestuous exchange betwenn
Anscombe and Brodbeck. 

I've been reluctant to discuss these matters. As an historian
I experience no resistance, but as a philosopher I do. I look
at a picture of Anscomb and Geach. It's online but I don't have
the URL here. In this picture they look like two peoplel who love
ONLY each other. I am uncettain of my views on Geach. He
is a terrific philosopher; I can't deny THAT! But his view of Broad
on McTaggart is just absurd, or so it seems. Maybe Anscombe
thought she only had to be close to God and Peter. I can find
no stories describing her as a wonderful person etc. My couple
of brief encounters suggests to me that there is no reason for
surprise. Anscombe I don't believe would have liked me very much;
but that makes it easier, having this belief, to be objective in 
some ways.

Let me ask you this: that one quote from Grice mentioning
Anscombe. Could you provide the full reference once more?

I'll get to Danny and a couple of other posts. Offline someone
sent an ingenious little note on embedded attitude verbs.
I want to remark to the author that I am not struck speechless,
but I DO have to finish this book.

Regards

Steve
--- On Tue, 7/14/09, Jlsperanza at aol.com <Jlsperanza at aol.com> wrote:

From: Jlsperanza at aol.com <Jlsperanza at aol.com>
Subject: Anscombe cited by Grice -- twice
To: hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk
Date: Tuesday, July 14, 2009, 2:37 PM

We see the first cite (well, Grice 1971) is a  terse footnote, "By 
Professor Anscombe" relating to some 'vivid' example which  Grice says _might_ have 
been pursued by Anscombe.

The second, which I had  read, but forgotten, is not much of a muchness or 
nothing to write home about,  but then I'm writing hist-analytic (just 
joking). In fact, as I type this, I ask  S. Bayne forebearance if that's the 
word. He (Bayne) may find the quote even  offensive. But on the merits of the 
hist. of anal. philosphy, I add  it.

It is on p. 42 of Chapman's book -- I had read it _a couple of times_  --. 
She is discussing the chapter on 'post-war' Oxford (her book is  
chronological). She writes, and I'll check the end-note before I post  this:

"Many years later [than the 1940s --  JLS],
when Grice was thinking back to the  days
of the Play Group, he jotted down a  list
of Oxford philosophers of the time.  Interestingly,
he divides his list into _three_  categories:


'yes' (Austin, Grice, Hampshire,  Strawson, Warnock ...)

'no' (Anscombe, Dummett,  Murdoch ...

and

'overage' (Ryle, Hardie  ...)"   (p. 42)

[CITATION DETAIL: 

"Notes for Ox Phil 1948-1970,  APA,
H. P. Grice Papers, BANC MSS 09/135c, the  
Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley."

-- I wrote  marginally for the 'overage': Wood, Cox, Mabbott
for the 'yes' I  added Urmson, Pears, Thomson, Hare.

I realise this is in rather bad taste  -- to supply a 'no' on a list 
promoted by an author who is engaged in a bio of  Anscombe --, so take it lightly!

Why would he write 'no'? 
Of course,  it's jocular: Dummett, for example, Grice does quote, 
extensively in "Indicative  Conditionals" for what I refer. And Murdoch I think 
collaborated to the "The  Nature of Metaphycis" that Grice also collaborated.

--- In any case, a  sort of erratum for Chapman -- is that Anscombe, while 
cited in her book
(p.  42) is not credited in the name-index.

Things like these make you wonder  about unpublicatons; I mean, they are 
lovely -- but surely to be taken with a  pinch of salt and morality. It's not 
like Grice cites Anscombe _TWICE_: it's  ONCE in "Intention and Uncertainty" 
(p. 8).

This second 'cite' is  frivolous and not meant for publication --. In any 
case, it is a pointer. I  recall when researching for Grice I would list 
loads of books with the comment:  "Grice not cited", "Grice not listed", "no 
mention of Grice". This sounded  _positive_ to me! 

So ditto, the fact that he has ""no" (Anscombe)"  should prove of some 
interest.

---- I was also reading that indeed in  those days 'women' were not 
accepted in (some) colleges, so there was no way  Anscombe could have joined, I 
would think, the Play Group. In fact Mrs. Grice  and his daughter confided in 
Chapman that THEY felt pretty much outsiders when  not allowed at St. John's 
(Grice's collage) even for refreshment on 'open days'  or something like 
that. :(.

Cheers,

J. L.  Speranza

**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy 
Steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221323036x1201367247/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072&hmpgID=62&bcd=Jul
yExcfooterNO62)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20090715/80593611/attachment-0002.html>


More information about the hist-analytic mailing list