[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
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.
(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