[hist-analytic] "No, thanks" (Was: Austin)

jlsperanza at aol.com jlsperanza at aol.com
Fri Dec 25 02:14:54 EST 2009

In a message dated 12/17/2009 9:58:15 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
Baynesr at comcast.net writes:

"First, P. H. Nowell-Smith informed me in correspondence some  years
ago that he was in this group. In fact, a close read of his _Ethics_  
some striking use of language one finds in Austin. I asked him if  these
locutions ( I don't have them at my finger tips) were his or Austin's.  He
was uncommitted but seemed to indicate they were Austin's. Also,  the
expression 'pro-attitude' occurs in Nowell-Smith's _Ethics_ which we  
find in Davidson."
Other than the 'unintelligible, misremembered' Donne line, Grice recalls  
Strawson, Freedom and Resentment. Do we _take_ offence of, say, what a 
lunatic  does? No. This limits, Strawson, says the cases only to what Grecian   
students do. 
Grice recalled the case when this Balkan student bribed P. L.  Gardiner (as 
he told them at the kindergartens) allow the student an  overnight visit to 

Nowell-Smith, in the role of the  straight man, said  that the proper way 
to signify that one has taken  offence would be to say so.

NIKOLAIDES enters room, offers money and  says,
"I  hope that you will not be offended by this somewhat Balkan approach".

GARDINER: (i) I do not take bribes on principle.  
(Nowell-Smith's  suggestion)
(ii) No, thanks (Austin's suggestion)

Nowell-Smith went on  discussing whether the implicature here was that  
Gardiner did take  offence. Austin's suggestion seems to imply that a MINOR  
offence was  taken, and that you do not need to _explicate_ (as per an  
explicature_)  the reason for your taking offence, but keep the conversation  
smoothly  Oxonian, all the time. 

Oddly, Warnock has Hare being "Nowell-Smith" here:
The language of higher educationby I Healthcare - 2008
was making when  he responded to R.M. Hare (Warnock 1973, 40n). How would 
one respond, ... Austin  said: 'Would you, Hare? I think I'd say. “No, thanks”
.' ..." "I take no bribes  on principle" "implied edifice of morals"
So I think it WOULD be good if Toulmin explains for us the Wittgenstein  
poker. The more recent kindergartens seem to allow for some mnemonic  
divergences... (Of course I prefer Grice's to Warnock's -- more detailed and  thus 
more bound to be truer).

J. L. Speranza

More information about the hist-analytic mailing list