Baynesr at comcast.net
Baynesr at comcast.net
Sat Jan 9 13:27:29 EST 2010
Baker and Hacking are superb philosophers. Grice is discussed at
length by David Lewis. I hope to get to that. As you know, I accept
much of what Grice says on meaning, and his use of intention and
expectation in the context of explicating the notion is a remarkably
original and insightful move.
Consider what Rawls says about Hobbes:
"...in my own view and that of many others Hobbes's _Leviathan_
is the greatest single work of political thought in the English
language." (Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy,
Harvard, 2007, p. 23)
I'm going to have to revise the "rules of engagement" on the list.
One thing is that I'm not going to allow posts on foreign
policy or on other list members. In addition, flaming will strictly
prohibited. Also, no mention of particular nations will be
allowed. Few political philosophers have felt the need for this
and of late I've been exposed to rather stupid people incapable
of getting beyond the commonplace know-nothing partisan discussion.
None of that will here be tolerated.
Moreover, any comments on list policy should be directed to me,
otherwise they will not be posted.
This having been said, I think we can have some really very
interesting discussion on the nature of justice and the
evolution of the modern theory of the social contract.
H. L. Hart's _The Concept of Law_ is exemplary of the sort of
thing relevant to the analytical approach to social and
----- Original Message -----
From: jlsperanza at aol.com
To: hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk
Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2010 12:48:10 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
From: Baynesr at comcast.net
To: hist-analytic <hist-analytic at simplelists.co.uk>
Sent: Sat, Jan 9, 2010 12:02 pm
Subject: New Moves
"I will be examining Hobbes..."
"I engage the topics ... in a more or less Hobbesian
framework, strange as that may sound."
That is excellent, and all good wishes to you.
When I was doing Grice, I was fascinated by a discussion of him in Judy
Baker (Grice´s collaborator)´s husband, I. M. Hacking, the Canada-born
philosopher. In his "Why does language matter to philosophy,"
he cares to take Hobbes more or less seriously into consideration.
Matter of fact, he calls Hobbes a proto- (or as I prefer, paleo-)
Gricean. Mainly in terms of intentions to display an "artificial" sign.
If I recall aright, Hacking´s example of Hobbes is "Stone!"
The obvious point: by uttering, "Stone!¨ the utterer U means that his
or her addressee should form the belief that the utterer is
entertaining the content, "stone". No mediate naive views there.
So, I just thought that Bayne´s point about turning Hobbesian contra
Rawls sounds very good.
J. L. Speranza
for the Grice Circle
More information about the hist-analytic