[hist-analytic] Grice and Carnap on Analysis

[Jlsperanza at aol.com]

Very seriously sorry for having changed the headers like that -- I AM in a  
hurry and if I send everything under "Carnap and Grice" I'll never recall 
what I  meant! (:)).
 
This one is about the use of 'substance' really.
 
In a message dated 2/9/2010 10:08:35 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,  
rbj at rbjones.com writes:

Thus, he  would have objected
> to  your earlier, colloquial idea that the  TOE is into the ultimate
> 'substantia'.
----
 
--- I think I was sort of playing with that fascinating book by Owen (which 
 I never read, of course) but that Grice loved: The Snares of Ontology, in  
Aristotle -- Grice quotes it in "Aristotle" paper PPQ 1988. 
 
The point about the use of 'substantia'. This is a pretty technical term in 
 what many regard as a bad metaphysical scheme. 
 
Recall that if Hume is Where The Heart Is (as we agree) he just objected to 
 our use of "cause" and our use of "substance". No such thing!
 
--- 

So I think Grice would be serious as to the types of items, or  classes of 
items, that we need postulate as basic in our theory. This I think he  
called a theory-theory, or first-philosophy, which is then back to Aristotle's  
GENERAL rather than special ontology. Grice is possibly thinking of 
Whitehead's  process-metaphysics which, for all Eddington knew, could be just more 
basic to a  physicist than the Substance-Attribute Aristotelian one 
(Eddington's 'wavicle',  THIS FORUM). Etc.
 
J. L. Speranza



I don't understand the  objection.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://rbjones.com/pipermail/hist-analytic_rbjones.com/attachments/20100209/0b994c7a/attachment.html>