SF

 

Catalogue Raisonné of J. L. Speranza’s Publications – H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Sf

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘H. P. Grice e J. L. Speranza: La Conversazione – I Verbali: Sforza – Ossia: Grice e Sforza: la ragione conversazionale dell’iustum/iussum – tra idealismo e positivismo. Note sul problema della dialettica. Il Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice Widar Cesarini Sforza (Forli, Romagna): Grice: la ragione conversazionale dell’iustum/iussum – tra idealismo e positivismo. Sforza and Grice can be fruitfully compared as theorists of normative meaning who both resist reductive positivism, yet articulate that resistance at different levels of analysis: Sforza, working within Italian legal and neo‑idealist philosophy, frames ragione conversazionale around the distinction between iussum, the enacted command of positive law, and iustum, the prior and living reality of justice as it is recognised, shared, and sustained within a community, so that juridical meaning arises from social recognition and ethical life rather than mere legislative force; Grice, by contrast, reconstructs reason‑governed meaning at the level of ordinary conversation, showing how what an utterance means cannot be reduced to its conventional form or authoritative issuance, but depends on rational cooperation, mutual recognition of intentions, and shared normative expectations. Where Sforza argues that a command lacks genuine authority unless it can be taken up as iustum within the social consciousness of those subject to it, Grice similarly shows that an utterance, however formally correct, fails to mean what it purports to mean unless it is intelligible within a framework of rational conversational practices governed by principles of relevance, sincerity, and cooperation. The parallel is structural rather than doctrinal: Sforza’s critique of legal positivism anticipates, in jurisprudential terms, Grice’s critique of purely formal or causal accounts of meaning, with both thinkers insisting that normativity precedes mere enactment or encoding. Yet they diverge in scope and method: Sforza embeds conversational reason in an ontological and historical account of social life, where justice is a mode of being before it is a rule, whereas Grice deliberately abstracts from history and institutions to identify the minimal rational conditions under which any act of saying can count as meaningful at all. In this way, Sforza offers a civil‑ethical deepening of the same intuition that animates Grice’s pragmatics: command without recognition is empty, just as utterance without rational uptake is merely noise, and in both law and language it is shared reason, exercised in interaction, that confers validity. S.’s emphasis on the distinction between iussum -- the mere command or positive law -- and iustum -- the truly just or intrinsic justice -- bridges legal theory and mainstream Italian philosophy by challenging the dominance of legal positivism through the lens of neo-idealism and existentialism.  Philosophical Integration Neo-Idealist Roots: Following the influence of CROCE  and GENTILE , S. argues that law is not a static set of rules – iussum -- but a living expression of the human spirit -- iustum. This shifts the focus of mainstream Italian thought from formalist structures to the "concrete experience" of the individual and society. Social Reality and "Juridicity": S. introduces the idea of the "sociality of law," suggesting that any organised social group produces its own iustum. This concept influences broader Italian philosophical debates regarding the nature of the state versus civil society, asserting that justice precedes the legislative command. Ontological Shift: By prioritising iustum, S. aligns legal philosophy with the broader Italian philosophical move toward phenomenology. Law is re-defined as an ontological category -- a way of being in the world —, rather than a mere instrument of political power.  Impact on Mainstream Thought This distinction allowed Italian philosophers to critique authoritarianism by arguing that a law – iussum -- lacks validity if it contradicts the underlying ethical fabric – iustum -- of the community. This perspective remains a cornerstone in Italian intellectual history, influencing contemporary discussions on human rights and the ethical foundations of democracy.  For further academic exploration of his legal philosophy, you can view his core texts on PhilPapersor access historical overviews of Italian Legal Philosophy.” iussum, iustum. Direttore del Resto del Carlino. Insegna a Roma. iussum, iustum.  Grice: Ah, caro Sforza, permettimi di dire che solo io, letterato e umanista, riesco a cogliere davvero tutta la forza che si cela dietro l’iussum e l’iustum — come nessun altro saprà mai! Ti ringrazio sinceramente per aver portato questa fine distinzione in un consesso così stimolante.  Sforza: Grice, è proprio il tuo spirito raffinato che sa vedere oltre la superficie delle leggi. Per me, il vero senso del diritto sta nel suo essere giusto, non solo comandato — e sono lieto che tu lo riconosca con tanta profondità.  Grice: È la concretezza dell’esperienza, caro Sforza, che ci fa ricordare quanto la giustizia debba precedere ogni comando. Solo chi vive il diritto come forma dell’essere può capirlo fino in fondo.  Sforza: Hai ragione, Grice! Se tutti avessero il tuo sguardo, forse non ci sarebbero leggi che tradiscono la vera giustizia. D’altronde, come si dice in Emilia, “la legge senza giustizia è come un pane senza sale.” Sforza, Widar Cesarini (1908). Dissertazione. Giurisprudenza. Parma.