[hist-analytic] Carnap And Grice Play Deontics
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Mon Mar 1 14:05:50 EST 2010
In a message dated 3/1/2010 1:19:39 rbj at rbjones.com writes:
"I confess that this is highly speculative. I am extrapolating his methods
into application areas he did
Thanks, and thanks to S. R. Bayne, too, for the ref. to the work on Hare
by Vranas. --.
I enjoyed R. B. Jones's discussion of the Logical versus what he calls "M"
for moral 'rules' in a game of 'deontics'. I would restrict the "M" for
'meaning'! Seeing that both Carnap and Grice use the "m" for meaning, too
(Carnap's "meaning-postulates", Grice's "M-Intentions").
A few further points:
i. I was looking online at various documents, and, I may have shared this
with CarnapCorner.blogspot, but there was this pdf.doc by (I think) this
contributor to recent work on Carnap, regarding the idea that "science" is
usually _not_ a primitive, or 'datum' in Carnap. It is _usually_ understood
that, e.g., the criteria (however practical) in deciding whether to choose
this or that language _are_ such that 'science' is _meant_, but this author
was pointing to the explicit lack, as it were, of such 'tag' in Carnap's
discourse. Will see if I can retrieve it.
ii. I am currently discussing Grice's taking up of this marvelous work by
Carnap on "Ramsey sentence". And it may deal, as I hope it does, with R. B.
Jones's point about the "M-rules", as Jones calls them -- but where it
merely stipulates, say, the operator "P" -- it is permissible that... -- or "O"
-- it is obligatory that... -Suppose "He who wills the end wills the
means". Suppose we see it as somewhat "deontic". If A finds it obligatory to
pursue end, A finds it obligatory to implement means. Surely caeteris paribus.
But the point I was making has to do with this rule of "Empirical
Psychology", Grice has it -- I forget the name of the 'law', but he says "is is (or
was) a law of Empirical Psychology". You gotta love a man who writes of
laws as being or having-been! Anyway, the point concerns the 'analyticity'
(alleged) of this or that 'generalisation', call it empirical -- or
observational (perhaps better). Ramsey and Carnap and Grice seem to be saying that
for ANY 'observational-language', say, it may be held that any
'generalisation' yields --. Hence the need of Carnap to narrow the desiderata of Ramsey
sentences to deal with 'hypothetical' cases. So, the choice of "He who
wills the end, wills the means" _as_ 'analytic' will be part (and parcel) of
what the _speaker_ of the language is establishing. And so: even in the
realm _other_ than 'assertoric' logic as it were, it would not easy to
distinguish between those claims we dub 'analytic' from those we don't. I'm
speaking VERY vaguely! (Bear with me, till I can clarify, or as Carnap would have
iii. Carnap does explicitly argue, I would think, that Morals (or what
would stand as such) would _be_ a branch of "Empirical Psychology" (phrase as
we see, used by Grice), so the topic may have broader consequences. Consider
Hintikka's doxastic claims
(Bel(A, p) & Bel(A, p-->q)) ---caet.par.---> B(A, q)
Grice wants to say this belongs to "rational" psychology, rather than
"empirical" psychology, but there may be connections. Carnap did work
extensively on the 'pragmatics' as he called it, of 'belief and assertion'.
iv. Grice discusses at length Davidson's playing with "ATC" -- all things
considered and caeteris-paribus generalisations which _are_ contingent and
synthetic, but also with some which we 'entrench' as 'analytic'. Since
Carnap did work so extensively on probability, I'm sure Grice would look for
THAT work. Anything of importance that Grice wants to say about 'desirability'
(which for him yields 'morality') he is careful enough to find an analogue
in terms of 'probability'. In fact this amused me once, because Levinson,
in his textbook of pragmatics ("Pragmatics", Cambridge University Press --
and Levinson has discussed Carnap extensively vis a vis Carnap/Bar-Hillel
along with Atlas) quotes Grice 1973 as being, "Probability, Defeasibility
and mood operators" where it is actually, the mimeo goes, as cited by
Grice/Baker in Vermazen/Hintikka, "Probability, _Desirability_ and mood operators."
J. L. Speranza
More information about the hist-analytic