[hist-analytic] Grice's Bêtes Noires: the Twelve of Them, and, in strict Order of Appearance
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Mon Feb 22 16:33:43 EST 2010
also known as 'demons' (if not 'perilous places')
"I am also adversely influenced by a different kind of unattractive feature
which ... these bêtes noires seem to possess" (p. 68).
And their lovely mother rearing her lovely head: Minimalism
"As I thread my way unsteadily along the tortuous mountain path which is
supposed to lead, in the long distance, to the City of Eternal Truth, I find
myself beset by a multitude of demons and perilous places, bearing names
like Extensionalism, Nominalism, Positivism, Naturalism, Mechanism,
Phenomenalism, Reductionism, Physicalism, Materialism, Empiricism, Scepticism, and
Functionalism." (Grice, Prejudices and Predilections -- vide Gr86).
(cfr. "in strict order of apperance")
In a message dated 2/22/2010 1:22:32 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
rbj at rbjones.com writes:
if the idea of pluralistic minimalism
could be made clear to Grice, would he be more tolerant of
such minimalisms than he is of (what I like to call)
--- Of course, Roger!
You are making Grice sound like an ogre, if that's the word! He would be
willing to _talk_. He did, most of his life!
Just a few points!
---- When you say that he doesn't understand ... how someone may be
Phenomenalist and Materialist. Let's go back to that page 80. I don't think we
NEED p. 81, just _now_.
He is listing 'demons':
and he says that he is finding an antipathy for them all. A "twelvefold
antipathy" he writes. He finds it agreeable, as it were, to refer to his
'twelvefold antipathy' to be directed towards "Minimalism". So I would make a
distinction between your use of
--- for it's the whole totally black bete noire of the -ism that repelled
Grice (on his way to the City of Eternal Truth, as he ironically puts it of
course -- it's all a parody of Bunyan's boring protestant booklet!)
So, he is having those demons. And he has to have a caveat.
"I'm not saying I ever met one person who personified them all" (or
And _then_ he adds, "for, perhaps it is difficult to see how someone can
provide support to both Materialism and Phenomenalism".
So, while he would appreciate your distinctions, he is just indeed, merely
pointing out that his is not a 'strawman' or more of a 'strawman' than it
needs be. But I'll re-read your minimalisations with interest. At this point
one wonders about
Now, in terms of Carnap.
You are saying that
can wear many 'guises': there's a dogmatic Minimalism, and other:
pluralistic and pragmatism.
I would think he would, alas, have
as a bete noire. For he is saying, "a man, if a philosopher, and virtuous,
is _entire_." One is not sure what he means, but I think he means
consistency (in his dogmas, if you wish). We have to be careful when we speak of
'dogmas' with Grice. Whoelse or elsewho, would have written something with the
typically British spelling, "In defence of a dogma" and get away with it.
(Cfr. Grandy on underdogma as cited by Grice WoW:Mean.Rev.).
So, he would NOT have favoured someone (I think his name is "Puddle")
"Oh, I'm a materialist in _metaphysics_,
when since on Thursdays I'm also
teaching the Ethics seminar (he is
on sabbatical, Harry) I am a
non-naturalist to appease the
Moorean among by pre-pubescent
So one has to be careful.
This leaves us with Minimalism, as it stood (for him).
He is precise about Minimalism. In GriceClub, etc -- if we do search, etc.
-- there's Trade, which is a word Grice uses for the point. It's a pretty
complex simile, and I have to work on this for each of the 12 betes. But his
idea is that each bete is a protectionist, and that as such she should be
labelled a 'criminal'. And the place to sue her is the "Trade Commision" --
for philosophers. For a philosopher wants to use a device -- say:
"abstract entity" as you mention them (why is it that Grice uses it in plural?
Surely your idea of just one TYPE of abstract entity seems daemoniac enough!).
-- I love a daemon, eudaemon.
So Minimalism is dogmatically as you say blocking our desire for
philosophical explanation. The best illustration is the breakdown of rationality
that Hume thought had brought when it came to Ethics. Hume forked the thing in
such a way that a moralist had to be an irrationalist. Kant Kant Cope That
Cant, and wrote his long thing, Practical Reason Treatise, to show that
there ARE rational guidelines in the realm of 'ought'.
So, what was underlooked, or just DENIED, or rejected by Hume's minimalism
is proved, to the Kantian amongst us, to have been protectionistically
I.e. there _are_ patterns of argument in ethics. With academia you never
know. I mean, this is philosophy. They cannot really FAIL you if you keep
sticking to Stevenson's emotivism! The standards for passing and dropping out
and get a philo degree are not like dentistry! So everything is
'compromisable', etc. But you get my drift.
Keep up the good work. If I propose a little Table of Categories for each
of the beasts, I shall, here in Analytic. And S. R. Bayne SHOULD be joining
in! (Not to mention Aune, Hall, and all the rest of them, provided it's
with _good_ things).
More information about the hist-analytic