"In the later 1930s Oxford was rudely
aroused from its semi-peaceful
semi-slumbers by the barrage of
Viennese bombshells hurled at it
by A. J. Ayer, at the time the
enfant terrible of
Oxford philosophy".
Gr86:48
He adds, interestingly -- and see above how RHETORIC he can wax!
"Many people,
including MYSELF,
were greatly interested by the
methods, theses and problems
which were on display."
"And some [not hisself -- sic -- now]
were, at least momentarily,
inspired by what they saw and heard"
-- can't say I can name a bunch other than Ayer.
He ends his passage of Oxford in the 1930s with a reference to a Dogmatism:
"For _my_ part, my reservations
were never laid to rest: the crudities
and dogmatisms seemed to pervasive. And
then everything was more or less
brought to a halt by the war"
--- Speranza has researched quite a bit of what we may call "the beginnings of ordinary language philosophy in Oxford".
Grice self-appointed as having been brought "up on the wrong side of the tracks" so he never really socialised with Ayer much (who was meeting with Austin, Hampshire, Hart, and 6 more -- on Tuesday evenings at All Souls).
Grice as a much more standard Lit. Hum. student with associations with the classics programme at Corpus, and he was just as much involved in cricket and football. His early papers from this years are a manuscript on Plato's theory of negation, and on Locke and the 'rational, intelligent parots', which transpired as _Mind_ 1942.
A counterfactual (I hate them) springs: what if the war had not been declared? It seems OBVIOUS that _after the war_ Grice sided with Austin, and against Ayer. Grice was now part of the playgroup with Austin. Ayer kept his club at All Souls (Some but very few belonged to both: if you can run with the hare and hunt with the hounds sort of thing: D. F. Pears one of them).
Etc.
Monday, 15 February 2010
"pirots (which, as Russell and Carnap have told us,...)"
By J. L. Speranza
for the Carnap Corner
"My creatures I call pirots (which, as Russell and Carnap have told us are things which karulize elatically")
Grice, Method, 1975 repr. Gr91:140
And cfr. Ch06:122, who's relying on an unpublication (transcript from a tape) by Grice, which he wanted to entitle, "How pirots karulize elatically: some simpler ways".
In "Method" he actually refers (in this order) to "Russell and Carnap" -- but we haven't been able to find the earlier Russellian reference. It is possible that Carnap learned of the pirots via correspondence with Russell (vide Roger Bishop Jones/J. L. Speranza, "The Carnap-Grice Conversation", ch. ii -- Student Years and beyond).
The pirots acquired some fame after Grice re-hashed them in this 1970s lectures, then. He writes in 1975a:
----"My creatures I call pirots (which Russell and Carnap have told us are things which karulize elatically)"
In Grice they play a methodological role in what we may see as an ideal-observer theory. Note the poetic license Grice takes in considering the pirot is a 'thing'.
For, as Chapman notes, as directly per Carnap 1937 -- all that write (tr. Smeaton) writes is:
"For instance, given an appropriate RULE, it can be PROVED
that the word-series, 'Pirots karulize elatically' is
a sentence, provided only that 'Pirots' is known to be
a substantive (in the plural),"
-- Cfr. Alice's first reaction to her "Jabberwocky": "Well, it seems pretty obvious that something did something very nasty to someone". And cfr. 'All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.')
-- but we are not told they are _things_ unless we consider properties, e.g. to be things, too--.
"Tempers boil Italianly"
Carnap goes on:
"'karulize' a verb (in the third person plural) and 'elatically' an adverb... The meaning of the words [i.e. the roots, PIROT, KARULISE and ELATICAL) are quite Inessential to the purpose, and need not be known".
As Chapman notes, the agenda of regimenting FL vs. NL is already there in the Intro to this book (Cfr. Carnap's two lectures in London):
"In the introduction to The Logical Syntax of Language", Chapman expands, "Carnap presents a typically LOGICAL POSITIVIST accont of the PHILOSOPHER's reason for taking language seriously."
Seriously? This seems like the antonymy of seriousness to me, but I see her point.
"A suitably rigorous language will provide the necessary tools for logical and SCIENTIFIC exposition. This language is to be a FORMAL SYSTEM, concerned with types and orders of symbols but paying no attention to MEANING."
Chapman goes on to quote directly from Carnap here:
Carnap writes:
"The unsystematic and logically IMPERFECT structure
of the natural word-languges" makes them unamenable
to such formal analysis, but in a
"well-constructed language" it is possible to formulate and undestand syntactic rules".
Roger Bishop Jones is right here, as Chapman agrees: "Carnap does no more with his invented language, proposing instead to stick to symbolic languages".
----
But yes, the pirot reaches maturity then with Grice. (And if Speranza may add so, he uses them pretty freely in his Speranza, The Feast of Reason, to provide a transcendental justification of survival mechanisms!)
Etc.
JL
Refs.
Carnap, The logical syntax of language, 1937.
Chapman, _Grice_. Palgrave/Macmillan, 2006.
Grice, Method in philosophical psychology, 1975, Proc. APA, repr. 1991.
Speranza, JL. The feast of conversational reason, in M. J. Palacios.
for the Carnap Corner
"My creatures I call pirots (which, as Russell and Carnap have told us are things which karulize elatically")
Grice, Method, 1975 repr. Gr91:140
And cfr. Ch06:122, who's relying on an unpublication (transcript from a tape) by Grice, which he wanted to entitle, "How pirots karulize elatically: some simpler ways".
In "Method" he actually refers (in this order) to "Russell and Carnap" -- but we haven't been able to find the earlier Russellian reference. It is possible that Carnap learned of the pirots via correspondence with Russell (vide Roger Bishop Jones/J. L. Speranza, "The Carnap-Grice Conversation", ch. ii -- Student Years and beyond).
The pirots acquired some fame after Grice re-hashed them in this 1970s lectures, then. He writes in 1975a:
----"My creatures I call pirots (which Russell and Carnap have told us are things which karulize elatically)"
In Grice they play a methodological role in what we may see as an ideal-observer theory. Note the poetic license Grice takes in considering the pirot is a 'thing'.
For, as Chapman notes, as directly per Carnap 1937 -- all that write (tr. Smeaton) writes is:
"For instance, given an appropriate RULE, it can be PROVED
that the word-series, 'Pirots karulize elatically' is
a sentence, provided only that 'Pirots' is known to be
a substantive (in the plural),"
-- Cfr. Alice's first reaction to her "Jabberwocky": "Well, it seems pretty obvious that something did something very nasty to someone". And cfr. 'All mimsy were the borogoves, and the mome raths outgrabe.')
-- but we are not told they are _things_ unless we consider properties, e.g. to be things, too--.
"Tempers boil Italianly"
Carnap goes on:
"'karulize' a verb (in the third person plural) and 'elatically' an adverb... The meaning of the words [i.e. the roots, PIROT, KARULISE and ELATICAL) are quite Inessential to the purpose, and need not be known".
As Chapman notes, the agenda of regimenting FL vs. NL is already there in the Intro to this book (Cfr. Carnap's two lectures in London):
"In the introduction to The Logical Syntax of Language", Chapman expands, "Carnap presents a typically LOGICAL POSITIVIST accont of the PHILOSOPHER's reason for taking language seriously."
Seriously? This seems like the antonymy of seriousness to me, but I see her point.
"A suitably rigorous language will provide the necessary tools for logical and SCIENTIFIC exposition. This language is to be a FORMAL SYSTEM, concerned with types and orders of symbols but paying no attention to MEANING."
Chapman goes on to quote directly from Carnap here:
Carnap writes:
"The unsystematic and logically IMPERFECT structure
of the natural word-languges" makes them unamenable
to such formal analysis, but in a
"well-constructed language" it is possible to formulate and undestand syntactic rules".
Roger Bishop Jones is right here, as Chapman agrees: "Carnap does no more with his invented language, proposing instead to stick to symbolic languages".
----
But yes, the pirot reaches maturity then with Grice. (And if Speranza may add so, he uses them pretty freely in his Speranza, The Feast of Reason, to provide a transcendental justification of survival mechanisms!)
Etc.
JL
Refs.
Carnap, The logical syntax of language, 1937.
Chapman, _Grice_. Palgrave/Macmillan, 2006.
Grice, Method in philosophical psychology, 1975, Proc. APA, repr. 1991.
Speranza, JL. The feast of conversational reason, in M. J. Palacios.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
The Pirot Talk
By J. L. Speranza, F. R. S. (failed) &c
of The Grice Club,
for The Carnap Corner.
It is a pleasure to be invited to correspond on pirot talk and others. Roger should note that it is pretty good, when one posts things to blogs to leave the first line of the post you are writing blank. Then add "By Roger Bishop Jones, of the Carnap Corner". In this way, when people (and pirots) read the blog "Carnap Corner", they see it as a magazine, or something, with contributions by different people (I am sorry that my blog, GriceClub, is not working too smooth on that front, seeing that contributions are mainly from yours truly). The bad-side of this is that comments, usually highly entertaining and informative, are otherwise buried at a 'click' distance that many pirots (I know) will not (click) -- and thus left unread.
So what we should aim at is good posts, or at least good titled post (or goodly titled posts) and threads of comments. Comments are not hierarchized, if that's the word. One after the other. That's good if it's just two people (or pirots) joining in, but if you get a third party, you may need to mark who you are addressing your comment to. (So far, I don't think I've had that problem in GriceClub at all!).
Anyway, the pirot-talk then. Pirot is a term used by Carnap as early as 1937, as tr. by Smeaton. The word has an early occurrence in the OED2, but we can ignore that, for the time being. Grice took it up and abused it!
of The Grice Club,
for The Carnap Corner.
It is a pleasure to be invited to correspond on pirot talk and others. Roger should note that it is pretty good, when one posts things to blogs to leave the first line of the post you are writing blank. Then add "By Roger Bishop Jones, of the Carnap Corner". In this way, when people (and pirots) read the blog "Carnap Corner", they see it as a magazine, or something, with contributions by different people (I am sorry that my blog, GriceClub, is not working too smooth on that front, seeing that contributions are mainly from yours truly). The bad-side of this is that comments, usually highly entertaining and informative, are otherwise buried at a 'click' distance that many pirots (I know) will not (click) -- and thus left unread.
So what we should aim at is good posts, or at least good titled post (or goodly titled posts) and threads of comments. Comments are not hierarchized, if that's the word. One after the other. That's good if it's just two people (or pirots) joining in, but if you get a third party, you may need to mark who you are addressing your comment to. (So far, I don't think I've had that problem in GriceClub at all!).
Anyway, the pirot-talk then. Pirot is a term used by Carnap as early as 1937, as tr. by Smeaton. The word has an early occurrence in the OED2, but we can ignore that, for the time being. Grice took it up and abused it!
Carnap Bio
Surely I don't have to mention that this blog is devoted to Carnap?
Well, I'm just going through his "Intellectual Autobiography" at
present, writing another precis, pulling out the important bits for
our "Conversation between Carnap and Grice".
So maybe I'll post some of it here.
Anyway, I am impressed by how much new I get whenever I reread
something with a different purpose in mind (this is just a nice way of
saying how selective and minimal my retention is).
On this read, I look for it and I see, just what an important part of
the philosophical outlook of Carnap is already in place, even before
he comes to Vienna (let alone before Wittgenstein's influence kicks
in).
Carnap Corner joins the Grice Club
J.L. Speranza and I are colluding in the writing of a tiny book about Carnap and Grice.
I have been trying to understand how to work his blog, "The Grice Club", of which he made me an author, without much success.
I thought I might understand the workings better if I had one of my own, however desultory.
And thus it is bound to be, for I am the tortoise to Speranza's hare, and while he spills out Gricean entertainment by the second, I meditate and cogitate over exactly what should be said until one day I forget that topic and wake up thinking of anotherm leaving nothing said.
Anyway, less anon.
RBJ
I have been trying to understand how to work his blog, "The Grice Club", of which he made me an author, without much success.
I thought I might understand the workings better if I had one of my own, however desultory.
And thus it is bound to be, for I am the tortoise to Speranza's hare, and while he spills out Gricean entertainment by the second, I meditate and cogitate over exactly what should be said until one day I forget that topic and wake up thinking of anotherm leaving nothing said.
Anyway, less anon.
RBJ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)