[hist-analytic] Hobbesian

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 
political philosophy.

Best wishes 


----- 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 
Subject: Hobbesian 

-----Original Message----- 
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 mailing list