Re: Presupposition and Metaphysics

Speranza

Jones writes that "It's a bit of a handicap having a lousy memory. I see that in the draft "conversation" I had already casually made the connection (between presupposition and metaphysics) by describing (in section 4.5 "Metaphysics") descriptive metaphysics as concerned with metaphysics "as presupposed in ordinary language" (is this how Strawson describes it?)."

I should doublecheck. From what I recall, this was in "Individuals: an essay in descriptive metaphysics", that Grice mentions in "Reply to Richards", indeed.

--- But I wouldn't put too much emphasis on 'presuppose' there. Recall that Strawson is pretty loose when it comes to use 'presuppose'. He did write:

"The king of France is bald" IMPLIES there is a king of France. His presupposition was formerly a mere 'implication', and even Grice, who is much more careful with lingo, has "Have you stopped beating your wife?" as 'implication' in the Section III: Implication, of "Causal theory" in Baynes's website.

---- Of course Jones is right in using 'presupposition' seriously, alla Husserl, and Collingwood ("metaphysics" as 'the science of absolute presuppositions').

Jones:

"So I already have a start, in 4.5, on a comparison of metaphysics in Grice and Carnap, but had not at that stage the opinion I am now moving towards on the importance of a conciliation on metaphysics for "The City". However, I am inclined to start afresh on this, and first to post something on metaphysics on Carnap Corner.
I just noticed that my last post on "one Bete too many" was very badly formatted so I went back and edited it to make it more readable."

Good.

For the historical record, it may do to consult how HEIDEGGER was using 'metaphysic'. When Ayer popularised Carnap's rejection of metaphysics, he (Ayer) was introducing yet another 'sense' to 'metaphysic'.

I am glad to see that Carnap changed from 'meaningless' to jargon about cognitive significance! This is a particular favourite topic of mine, as it connects with Ogden and Richards, and EMOTIVISM, and via Stevenson, to Grice's emphasis on 'non-indicative' uses of 'language'. For

"Close the door!"

"Do not covet thy neighbour's wife!"

would NOT be a matter of indicative-type sort of meaning. It's still different with

"Eating people is wrong."

(I think there is a book on ethics by the title, "Why eating people is wrong." -- and so on).

Cheers.