RT list: Re: The Cunning of Reason

Okay, so that history won't have me at 'the chap who went through bib. lists
and found typos', my further readings from Allott!

The more I read the thesis the more I love it!

For comments:

* p. 10, Grice on 'natural' versus 'non'-natural "meaning" -- ref. to
Wharton's PhD -- indeed, my recent readings of Chapman had me checking Stevenson
(1944) that Grice cites, and discover that the man (Stevenson) was _scared_ by
'natural' meaning!

The thermostat 'means' that the room is warm.

Stevenson explictly uses scare quotes there; Grice dropped them, and the
rest is ... footnotes to Plato! (Whitehead said, Metaphysics is footnotes to
Plato, I said pragmatics is footnotes to Grice).

* p. 48. I notice that 'quick way' is indeed _Grice's_ sobriquet (Grice
2001:17), not *just* Allott's If I may expand on another sobriquet Allott uses
later on in his thesis, on p. 236, this would be the "quick and dirty" way. --
There is a lot of relevance to M. K. Davies here (I would say to philosophers
in general, but one never knows). Davies has written extensively in _Mind_
on 'knowledge of language', 'tacit'? -- And while Grice makes the PERE (in
Reply to Richards) explicitly _not_ be 'subterranean', I was amused to see that
Allott italicises Grice's use of 'subliminal' instead (p. 219). As if there
were a difference. I loved Allott's idea of having Shropshire expands his
'nipped in the bud' argument in the Appendix. I too believe that the soul is
immortal.

* I loved all the 'pc', that is, personal conversation with thesis advisor,
D. S. M. W. --.

p. 75 * I enjoyed Allott's focusing on Grice's explicitation of
"non-deductive" to be (merely, if I may split) expected, not guaranteed (Grice 2001:22)
and the embarrassment that this would have meant for Grice (that human
rationality can _fail_!). The word 'embarrassment' comes from one of those pc's.

p. 78. While Allott expands, alla Warner, on Georg Kriesel = Botrinnik, I
would also give credit to Brockway and her work on 'conventional' implicature.
I refer explicitly to Grice's own example of such, 'therefore'. Allott
discusses the example:

Jill: Jack is an Englishman; he is, therefore, brave.

This simple example buries a long discussion with Strawson, of all people.
In Introduction to logical theory (1952 -- crediting "Mr. H. P. Grice" in the
foreword) Strawson discusses something like a _conventional_ implicature for
'therefore'. Grice liked that, and kept the example. On p. 207, in a footnote
only meant to tease, I take, Brockway, Allott writes, "I do not discuss
conventional implicature". Allott is _too_ sincere, as when in another footnote
he writes, "Trying to get" (or words to this effect) what Reid means is beyond
the scope of my thesis". We write: 'beyond my current intention' here --
Imagine if someone should publish your thesis and keeps _that_! (*

* This reminds me of "as if". Allott discusses this, if not in terms which I
find delightful when Grice refers to a cat being deemed a dog in Oxford. But
Nancy Cartwright studied the 'als ob' as I call it in "Facts and Equations"
(in Grandy/Warner, PGRICE). And see what happens: she says, "I'll discuss
these at more length in the next _chapter_". Of course, the next 'chapter' is
never there! (but in her book it is).

* So I would say that 'therefore' in the Jack is an Englishman possibly
indicated for Grice an appeal to an implicit reasoning made explicit via
conventional implicature -- The case is nicely stated by Grandy in "Heritage of Gri
ce". For Strawson, 'therefore' is the conventional implicature of reasoning; he
also embraced a 'conventional-implicature' account for 'if', unlike Grice.
For Strawson, 'therefore' and 'if' both _conventionally_ implicate. For Grice,
only 'therefore' does.

p. 88. I enjoyed the reference to Hare. Indeed all those dictives and
phrastics-clistics-tropics-and neustics _had_ to be there. And I see Allott notes
that Grice preferred' mode' because 'mood' would clash with 'the standard use
in linguistics'. Also, I thought, because, "I'm not in the mood" is a rude
thing to say! And Hare is always a _good_ reference. Recall that his 'neustic'
was meant to replace, alas, his 'dictor' which is precisely what Wharton
should be meaning when _he_ says, 'what-is-said'!

p. 116. I loved the reference to Ryle.

p. 174. I enjoyed Allott's considerations on OED on eureka, oops, I mean
'heuristics'. It _is_ connected to the Greek 'eureka' though, too, no?
Liddell/Scott should illuminate me!

--
I enjoyed the latter bits of the dissertation  where Allott expands on 
'reasons' involved in "meaning" proper. I was reminded  of the bent arrow if that's 
what it is, that Kemmerling uses in PGRICE.  Basically, I have rephrased it as 
a  'slash':
U means that p by  x
iff   (i) I(U, Bel (A, p)     i.e. if U intends  that Addressee believes  p.
(ii)  Bel  (A, p) /  (i)
(iii) no more nor less
The three clauses or prongs being: exhibitiveness  (and Allott does mention 
the exhibitive-protreptic discussion, cfr. also his  footnote on 'optative' 
mode), reason-based, and, no-sneaky intentions  allowed.
Kemmerling has the 'on account of' as a bent arrow, where the  apodosis is 
the 'anemic' cause as it were that _effects_ the addressee's  response.
-----
I am pleased Allott  quotes not just Plato, but Aristotle, too, -- E. 
Nichomachea.
Finally, I  would pay a little homage to Robin Tolmach Lakoff. She _invented_ 
politeness.  But Allott writes, p. 244:
"Grice only discussed the  [use of the] Cooperative Principle         
in arriving at [conversational]  implicatures."
But doesn't he allow for maxims like 'be polite' to  _generate_ further 
implicatures? I _know_: they would not be _conversational_  because Grice makes it, 
and Allott discusses this re: 'implicature', a _term of  art_. But surely the 
scheme, to be pedantic and Oxonian and Harnishian,  is:
what-is-explicitly communicated
what-is-meant   
what is implicitly communicated:      conversationally  implicated
non-conversationally implicated, but still not conventionally.
Grice was  a Kantian at heart or "Ariskantian" as he preferred (Chapman, op. 
cit), so he  didn't think it was too important to stress 'politeness' and 
other 'moral'  maxims that may generate these types of implicatures. He wanted 
philosophers to  restrict to those that form their 'bread and butter': those that 
concern our  _hope_ in the unfailing faculty to cope with those cunnings!
Congrats again, N. E. -- great work, great job and one that provides  joy!
Cheers,
J. L.     
 
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 
steps! 
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1218822736x1201267884/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fwww.freecreditreport.com%2Fpm%2Fdefault.aspx%3Fsc%3D668072%26hmpgID
%3D62%26bcd%3DfebemailfooterNO62)