The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

5. The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
It was ultimately Grice who came to introduce, at Oxford, some of the first ideas that marked the significant fall from grace of Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Other factors combined to contribute to the general demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy, in particular the rise in popularity of Formal Semantics, but also a renewed pursuit of ‘Naturalism’ in Philosophy, aimed at drawing the discipline nearer, once again, to the sciences.

Grice had a special place in this story because his work, as well as providing the argument which threw Ordinary Language philosophical principles into doubt, contributed to the development of a field of study that ultimately became the wellspring of those carrying on the legacy of the Ordinary Language Philosophers in the 21st century; namely Speech-Act Theory.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Phil8659 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:39 am
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

5. The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
It was ultimately Grice who came to introduce, at Oxford, some of the first ideas that marked the significant fall from grace of Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Other factors combined to contribute to the general demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy, in particular the rise in popularity of Formal Semantics, but also a renewed pursuit of ‘Naturalism’ in Philosophy, aimed at drawing the discipline nearer, once again, to the sciences.

Grice had a special place in this story because his work, as well as providing the argument which threw Ordinary Language philosophical principles into doubt, contributed to the development of a field of study that ultimately became the wellspring of those carrying on the legacy of the Ordinary Language Philosophers in the 21st century; namely Speech-Act Theory.
The correlative of Ordinary, is what? Extraordinary? Then what Extraodinary Language Philosophy.
As language is a Universal, whose particulars are grammar systems, what grammar system is called Philosophy?
If Philosophy is over all of the sciences, as Plato noted, it too is a Universal, therefore, it is a synonym. What do you imagine that to be?

Is it a display of wisdom, to cite sources which are nothing more than a collective of words with absolutely no order imposed upon them by the very system of grammar which established those particular names?

Which works, can you cite, whose author comprehended the Law of Identity in regard to names expressed as: What may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing?
Can you cite any? That would be more profitable than citing pure gibberish.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 5:52 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:39 am
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

5. The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
It was ultimately Grice who came to introduce, at Oxford, some of the first ideas that marked the significant fall from grace of Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Other factors combined to contribute to the general demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy, in particular the rise in popularity of Formal Semantics, but also a renewed pursuit of ‘Naturalism’ in Philosophy, aimed at drawing the discipline nearer, once again, to the sciences.

Grice had a special place in this story because his work, as well as providing the argument which threw Ordinary Language philosophical principles into doubt, contributed to the development of a field of study that ultimately became the wellspring of those carrying on the legacy of the Ordinary Language Philosophers in the 21st century; namely Speech-Act Theory.
The correlative of Ordinary, is what? Extraordinary? Then what Extraodinary Language Philosophy.
As language is a Universal, whose particulars are grammar systems, what grammar system is called Philosophy?
If Philosophy is over all of the sciences, as Plato noted, it too is a Universal, therefore, it is a synonym. What do you imagine that to be?

Is it a display of wisdom, to cite sources which are nothing more than a collective of words with absolutely no order imposed upon them by the very system of grammar which established those particular names?

Which works, can you cite, whose author comprehended the Law of Identity in regard to names expressed as: What may be predicated of any thing is wholly determined by the definition of that thing?
Can you cite any? That would be more profitable than citing pure gibberish.
Not sure what is your point.
Ordinary language philosophy (OLP[1]) is a philosophical methodology that sees traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting or forgetting how words are ordinarily used to convey meaning in non-philosophical contexts.
Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] [as defined above] is recognized as one type of 'philosophy' among the many hundreds of philosophies.

The point of the OP is whether you support OLP is 'dead', it is still in use or popular?
The issue is not about the definition of OLP.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Phil8659 »

Ordinary language philosophy (OLP[1]) is a philosophical methodology that sees traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting or forgetting how words are ordinarily used to convey meaning in non-philosophical contexts.

Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] [as defined above] is recognized as one type of 'philosophy' among the many hundreds of philosophies.

The point of the OP is whether you support OLP is 'dead', it is still in use or popular?
The issue is not about the definition of OLP.
You do not even know what an anthropomorphism is do you? I do know know of any method, or the cutesy methodology, that see, or how a word conveys meaning. So, being simply, tell me, how does a word convey meaning? As Plato noted, names, words, in of themselves have no meaning. I might mean something, you might mean something, but how does a word effect, in of itself an action? You have no idea how deep you are in bull-shit do you? Do you know what a naming convention is, and how we either maintain it or not?

And, you do no even hear yourself. If it is true, there are countless philosophies, it means that philosophy is a relative, a verb, not a noun and sadly, i already know you have no idea of what is meant that a grammar is a method of effecting binary recursion, or as Plato noted, Dialectical.

All this aside, you might want to write a historical piece about the technology words have evolved for conveying meaning. Something like how beess convey pollen. That would be wonderfully informative.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 8:39 am
The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
https://iep.utm.edu/ord-lang/#H5

5. The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice
It was ultimately Grice who came to introduce, at Oxford, some of the first ideas that marked the significant fall from grace of Ordinary Language Philosophy.
Other factors combined to contribute to the general demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy, in particular the rise in popularity of Formal Semantics, but also a renewed pursuit of ‘Naturalism’ in Philosophy, aimed at drawing the discipline nearer, once again, to the sciences.

Grice had a special place in this story because his work, as well as providing the argument which threw Ordinary Language philosophical principles into doubt, contributed to the development of a field of study that ultimately became the wellspring of those carrying on the legacy of the Ordinary Language Philosophers in the 21st century; namely Speech-Act Theory.
As usual VA only reads a little...
from the same article
. (It should be noted that, this view notwithstanding, Grice remained more or less in agreement with the general view that ‘ordinary language is correct’ – compare Grice, the chapter entitled ‘Postwar Oxford Philosophy’ in his 1989.)
and then here...
A spectrum of positions now runs between radical extremes of how much of what we want to call ‘meaning’ is determined by semantics, and how much by pragmatics. The argument can roughly be described as a difference as to the degree of independence (from pragmatics) that we can ascribe to linguistic meaning. Some are of the view that at least a core of semantic content remains untouched by pragmatic effects. Others hold that all semantic content is ‘pragmatically saturated’. These positions carry on the legacies of Ideal and Ordinary Language philosophies respectively – now known as variations on ‘Literalism’ and ‘Contextualism’.
and the last sentence
Nevertheless, the ‘Homeric struggle’ Strawson described (2004, pp. 132) between two fundamentally opposing views about linguistic meaning continues.
and then one wonders what point VA is making.
Does this somehow have to do with his endless battle with PH?
Does it relate to an ax he has to grind with someone else or some group in the world?

Can he actually give a concrete example of the the two schools of thought, that coming from Grice and that coming from OLP, that relates directly to one of his interests?: objective morals. the evil of Islam as a couple of examples.

I ask this since I have to wonder if he actually understands this topic which to me he could show if he came up with his own examples, related to one of his repeating themes.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Phil8659 wrote: Sun Jul 03, 2022 5:42 am
Ordinary language philosophy (OLP[1]) is a philosophical methodology that sees traditional philosophical problems as rooted in misunderstandings philosophers develop by distorting or forgetting how words are ordinarily used to convey meaning in non-philosophical contexts.

Ordinary Language Philosophy [OLP] [as defined above] is recognized as one type of 'philosophy' among the many hundreds of philosophies.

The point of the OP is whether you support OLP is 'dead', it is still in use or popular?
The issue is not about the definition of OLP.
You do not even know what an anthropomorphism is do you? I do know know of any method, or the cutesy methodology, that see, or how a word conveys meaning. So, being simply, tell me, how does a word convey meaning? As Plato noted, names, words, in of themselves have no meaning. I might mean something, you might mean something, but how does a word effect, in of itself an action? You have no idea how deep you are in bull-shit do you? Do you know what a naming convention is, and how we either maintain it or not?

And, you do no even hear yourself. If it is true, there are countless philosophies, it means that philosophy is a relative, a verb, not a noun and sadly, i already know you have no idea of what is meant that a grammar is a method of effecting binary recursion, or as Plato noted, Dialectical.

All this aside, you might want to write a historical piece about the technology words have evolved for conveying meaning. Something like how beess convey pollen. That would be wonderfully informative.
Note sure what you are bleating about with your condescension and arrogance based on ignorance?

Do you agree with the OP, i.e.,
"The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy"
or not.

Here is what Lynd Forguson wrote of Ordinary Language Philosophy;
OXFORD AND THE "EPIDEMIC" OF ORDINARY LANGUAGE PHILOSOPHY
Lynd Forguson

In the ten years following the end of World War II, Oxford University was a center of extraordinarily fertile philosophical activity.
Out of it arose a new and distinctive philosophical movement, variously known as "ordinary language philosophy," "linguistic analysis," "conceptual analysis," or simply "Oxford philosophy."
Although it was centered in Oxford, by the end of the 1950s philosophers based throughout Britain, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and other English-speaking former British colonies were publishing work debating the philosophical concerns of the movement and reflecting its distinctive style of thinking and writing.

By the mid-1960s, however, this way of doing philosophy was already in decline at Oxford, and by the mid-1970s the philosophical climate at Oxford University had become more or less typical of philosophy departments elsewhere in the English-speaking world.

Ordinary language philosophy is now a historical movement, rather than an active force in contemporary philosophical discussion.
At present there are philosophers who merely practice merely remnants of what was termed Ordinary Language Philosophy in its heydays.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12234
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Here is an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of Ordinary Language Philosophy.

Bernard Williams with Bryan Magee on the Spell of Linguistic Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9fpGeniUPY

The final conclusion is, at present the cons of Ordinary Language Philosophy [since the 60-70s] has outweighed it pros, thus the The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy as an ideology.

But people like Peter Holmes and gang are still besotted by Ordinary Language Philosophy as an ideology where they often insist "what is fact" is what their ordinary English Language meant it to be.

PH: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?
viewtopic.php?p=570871#p570871
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy: Grice

Post by Iwannaplato »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 10:38 am Here is an interesting discussion on the pros and cons of Ordinary Language Philosophy.

Bernard Williams with Bryan Magee on the Spell of Linguistic Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9fpGeniUPY

The final conclusion is, at present the cons of Ordinary Language Philosophy [since the 60-70s] has outweighed it pros, thus the The Demise of Ordinary Language Philosophy as an ideology.

But people like Peter Holmes and gang are still besotted by Ordinary Language Philosophy as an ideology where they often insist "what is fact" is what their ordinary English Language meant it to be.

PH: Fact is What We English Speakers said It Is?
viewtopic.php?p=570871#p570871
What VA doesn't understand is that his beef with PH has nothing to do with the OLP. He's not helped by what Grice, for example, set in motion. He interprets PH as using OLP. Then finds some support against OLP and thinks this is relevant to his disagreement with PH.

What he needs to do is show that whatever VA's position is on language allows him to use fact in the way he uses that word.

But he can't do that.

So, VA: present us with Grice's position on the meaning of words and show how this allows for or supports your position on the word 'fact'.

And again, notice that in my first post I pointed out that Grice actually agrees with much of OLP.

What VA is doing is quoting philosophers he does not understand because they seem to relevantly disagree with a position different from one of VA's interlocutors. This is not a defence. It's a distraction.
Post Reply