GRICE E BOEZIO 

 Aristotle regarded types of soul (as I would suppose, of living thing) as forming a "developing series". I interpret that idea as being the supposition that the psychological theory for a given type is an extension of, and includes, the psychological theory of its predecessor-type. The realization of this idea is at least made possible by the assumption that psychological laws may be of a ceteris paribus form, and so can be modified without emendation. If this aspect of the programme can be made good, we may hope to safeguard the unity of psychological concepts in their application to animals and to human beings. Though (as Wittgenstein noted) certain animals can only expect such items as food, while men can expect a drought next summer, we can (if we wish) regard the concept of expectation as being determined not by the laws relating to it which are found in a single psychological theory, but by the sequences of sets of laws relating to it which are found in an ascending succession of psychological theories.

GRICE E BOEZIO

Grice e Boezio

 

1. Aristotle regarded types of soul (as I would suppose, of living thing) as forming a "developing series". I interpret that idea as being the supposition that the psychological theory for a given type is an extension of, and includes, the psychological theory of its predecessor-type. The realization of this idea is at least made possible by the assumption that psychological laws may be of a ceteris paribus form, and so can be modified without emendation. If this aspect of the programme can be made good, we may hope to safeguard the unity of psychological concepts in their application to animals and to human beings. Though (as Wittgenstein noted) certain animals can only expect such items as food, while men can expect a drought next summer, we can (if we wish) regard the concept of expectation as being determined not by the laws relating to it which are found in a single psychological theory, but by the sequences of sets of laws relating to it which are found in an ascending succession of psychological theories.

GRICE E VIO

 Grice turns to a third mode of unification, which he would describe as Cajetan in nature, and what is possibly the most baffling of the various ways explicitly suggested by Aristotle as being those in which what Grice is calling this unification or aequi-vocality the multiplicity of significations may arise, even if made less baffling by Vio – vide Ashford. These will be those cases in which the application of an epithet or expression E to a range of items is accounted for by an analogy detectable within that range. More explicitly, an analogy between the specific ‘universal’ which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplification of that ‘universal’ by this or that type of item. Even more explicitly, an analogy between the universals U1, U2, … Un, which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplifications of U1, U2, … Un, by items of the sorts ly. lo etc., The puzzling character of Aristotle's treatment of this topic arises from a number of different factors. First, there are a few things which Aristotle himself might have done to aid our comprehension. He might have given us a firm list of examples of epithets or expressions, the application of which to a given range of items is to be accounted for in this way. Alternatively, Aristotle might have given us a reasonably clearer characterisation of the kind of accounting which analogy is supposed to provide, leaving it to us to determine the range of application of this kind of accounting. Unfortunately he does neither of these things. Aristotle only offers us the most meagre hints about the way in which analogy might ‘unify,’ via aequi-vocality, the various applications of an epithet. We are told, for example, that as seeing is in the eye, so understanding is in the soul with the implicature that this fact accounts for the application of see both to a case of optical vision and a case of intellectual ‘vision.’ He also suggests that analogy is responsible for the application of the calm both to an undisturbed body of sea water and to an undisturbed expanse of air. Such offerings do not get us very far. Furthermore, not surprisingly, where Aristotle seems to fear to tread his commentators are most reluctant to plant their own feet. Perhaps the least unhelpful suggestion comes from a latter-day commentator, not Avicenna, but the influential Oxford, indeed Scottish, philosopher W. D. Ross, who suggests, as Aristotle's view, that the application of good is attributable to the fact that within one category C1 items which are good are related to an item in general belonging to that category, in a way which is analogous to the way in which a good item (say, a good cabbage) in some second category C2 is related to the general run of items which belong to that second category. Apart from the obscurity in the presentation of this idea, Ross's suggestion takes for granted something which Aristotle himself does not tell us, viz. that the application of the epithet good is one exemplification of unification or aequi-vocality of a value-oriented concept which is the outcome of analogy. Ross's suggestion about good would, moreover, be at best only a description of one special case of analogical unification via aequi-vocality, and would not give us any general account of such unification. Grice adds that little supplementary assistance is derivable from those who study general concepts. Such philosophers seem to adhere to the principle that silence is golden when it comes to discussion of such questions as the relation between analogy, and her sisters: metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable. So far as Aristotle himself is concerned, it seems fairly clear to Grice that the primary notion behind the concept of analogy is that of ‘proportion’: a:b::c:d. This notion is embodied, for example, in Aristotle's treatment of just. where one kind of just is alleged to consist in a due proportion between return, reward, or penalty, and antecedent desert, merit, or demerit. But it does remains a bit of a mystery how what starts life as, or as something approximating to, a quantitative relationship gets converted into a non-quantitative relation of correspondence or affinity. It looks as if we might be thrown back upon what we might hope to be an inspired conjecture. Grice takes as task the provision of an example, congenial to Aristotle, of the unification by analogy of the application to a range of objects of some epithet. Grice expects this to involve the detection of an analogical link between the exemplifications of the variety of this or that universal which the epithet may be used to ‘signify.’ Grice’s chosen specimen is grow. In the case of grow, a number of different kinds of shifts might be thought of as possessing an analogical unification by aequi-vocality. One of these would be examples of shifts in respect of what might be termed a syntactical metaphysical or ontological category. A substance, indeed a physical substance like a lump of wax or a mass of metal, might be said to grow. It would be tempting here to suggest that the relevantly involved ‘universal,’ that of increase in size or getting larger, provides the foundational instance of the literal ‘signification’ or sense of a universal by the application of th expression grow. We have here, so to speak, the 'ground-floor' signification – dictiveness -- of grow. But now, not only the physical substance itself but some accident of the substance may also be said to grow. Not only the piece of wax, but its magnitude, some event or process in its history, its powers or causal efficacy and its aesthetic quality or beauty might each be said to grow. And it seems not unplausible to suggest that though growth on the part of these non-substantial accidents is different, and more or, again, less boringly connected with growth on the part of the substance, there will always be some kind of correspondence, indeed analogical connection, between grow in the case of a non-substantial item and grow in the initial case of a substantial item. Another and different kind of categorial variation may separate some of the universals which the grow may be used to ‘signify’ from others. These will be connected with differences in some sub-category within the category of substance within which fall different sorts of items which may be said to grow. Different universals may be ‘signified’ by someone who speaks of a plant as growing and by someone who speaks of a human being as growing. The connection between these diverse realisations of grow may rest on, say, vegetal, analogy. In what is called the grow of a plant, such as a rose, internally originated increase in size seems to occupy a prominent place. In the case of a human being, the kind of development which may be involved in the grow may be much more varied and complex. The link between the two distinct universals which may be ‘signified’ might be provided by analogy between the roles which such changes fulfill in the development of the very different kinds of substances which are being characterised. No doubt many further kinds of analogical connection would emerge within the general practice of attributing this or that grow. Grice’s next endeavour will be an attempt to supply some general account of the way in which the presence of analogy may serve to unify multiplicity of signification; and if such an account should be found to offer prospects of distinguishing analogy from other concepts, particularly metaphor (as conversational implicature, as in the song title, ‘You’re the cream in my coffee’ to use Grice’s example in ‘Logic and conversation,’ which belongs to the same general family, that would be a welcome aspect of the account. It is Grice’s idea that, in metaphorical -- rather than literal -- description, a universal is ‘signified’ (you’re my pride and joy), which though distinct from that which underlies the literal signification of the epithet (the cream in the coffee) is nevertheless recognisably similar to the literal signification. Grice comes then to the concept of analogy itself. Grice starts by considering this or that item, I1, I2, … In, any one of which may be called an S. Grice initially supposes that being an S consists in belonging to a substantial type or kind, or category S, though that supposition may be relaxed. Grice’s move is to assume that being an S, consists in being subject to a system of laws which jointly express the nature, metier, or essentia, of the type or kind Si. Further, these laws, which furnish the core theory of S,, are to be formulated in terms of a finite set of Si-core properties -- let us say P1 to Pn. Each law involves an ordered extract from the core set. Their totality governs any fully authentic Sy. This totality may well not include every law which applies to S,: but it does include every law which is deemed to be relevant to the identity or identification of Sy, every law which determines whether or not a particular item I1, I2, … In, is to count as an 5. Grice next considers not merely things each of which is an S, but also things each of which is an Sz. It remains an open question whether or not the type S is to be deemed identical with the type S1. Grice assumes that, as in the case of S, membership of S, is determined by conformity to a system of laws relating to those properties which are central to S2. Grice symbolises these properties by the set of devices Or ... Q.. We now have various possibilities to consider. The first is that every law which is central to the determination of Sz is a mirror image of a law which is central to S,; and that the converse of this supposition also obtains. To this end, we assume that the properties which are central to being an S, are the properties of the devices O, through Os; and that if a law involving a certain ordered extract from the set P through P, belongs to the central theory of S to a law involving an exactly corresponding ordered extract from the set O, through O, will belong to the central theory of S; and that the same holds in reverse. In that case, we are in the position to say that there is a perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz; in which case, it may also be tempting to say that the types S, and S, are essentially identical. We should recognize that if we yield to this temptation we are not thereby forced to say that Sy and S, are indistinguishable, they might, for example, be differently related to perception, only one of them, perhaps, being accessible to sight. We shall only be forced to allow that essentially, or theoretically, the types are not distinct. The possibility just considered is that of a total perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sa. There is also, however, the possibility of a merely partial pertect analogy between S, and Sz. That is to say part of the central theory of one type, say S, may mirror the whole of the central theory of Sz, or again may mirror some part of a central theory of Sz. In such a circumstance, one might be led to say, in one case, that the type S, is a special case of the type S,; or, in another case, that the types S, and S, both fall under a common super-type, determined by the limited area of perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz. Another possibility will be that no perfect analogy, either total or partial, will hold between the two central theories. The best that can be found are imperfect analogies which will consist in laws central to one type approximating, to a certain degree, with the status of being analogues of laws central to the other. At this stage, Grice proposes a relaxation in the characterization of the signification of such symbols as 'S!', 'Sz etc., which till now I have been regarding as ‘signifying’ or denoting substantial types or kinds, reference to which is made in more or less regimented discourse of a theoretical or ‘alethic’ sort. But Grice allows for such symbols as being allowed to relate to what he hopes might be legitimately regarded as an informal precursor of the afore-mentioned substantial types, as expressing this or that concept of one or other classificatory sort, concepts which will be deployed in an unregimented description or explanations as pre-theoretical. Examples of such unregimented classificatory concepts might be concepts such as that of an investor, a doctor, a vehicle, a confidante, and so on. Grice would hope that in many ways their general character or metier might run parallel to that of their more regimented counterpart. In particular, Grice hopes and expects that the nature of such concepts would be bound up with conformity to a certain set of central generalities, like platitudes, truisms, etc. To be an investor or a vehicle will be to perform a metier, that is, to do a sufficient number of the kinds of things which are typically even stereotypically done by an investor or a vehicle. Grice expects, however, that the variety of possible forms of generalisation might considerably exceed the meagre armament which a theoretical enquirer normally permit themselves to employ. Grice also hopes and expects that the generalities which would be expressive of the nature of a particular classificatory concept would be formulable in terms of a limited body of features which would be central to the concept in question. This material might be sufficient to provide for the presence, from time to time, of analogy, at least of imperfect analogy, between such generalities which aro expressive of distinct classificatory concepts. When they occur, such analogies might be sufficient to provide for some unity or uni-vocality of ‘signification’ in the employment of a single epithet to ‘signify’ even different classificatory concepts; and this unity or aequi-vocality of ‘signification’, in turn, might be sufficient to justify the idea that, in such a case, the expression in question is used with a single ‘significatoin,’ lexical meaning, or Fregean sense.  Grice concludes his ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ with some suggestions about the interpretation of the concept of analogy as a possible foundation for the unity of ‘signification’ with two supplementary comments. His first comment is that there seems to be a good case for supposing that anyone who, like VIO did, accepts an account of an analogy-based unity of signification should not feel free to combine it with a rejection of the so-called analytic-synthetic distinction. After all, the analogy-based unity account relies crucially on a connection between the application of a particular concept and the application of a system of laws, or some such generalities, which is expressive of that concept. This, in tum, relies on the idea of a stock of further concepts, in terms of which these laws and generalities are to be formulated, being central to the original concept. But it seems plausible, if not mandatory, to suppose that such centrality involves a non-contingent connection between the original concept and the concepts which are said to be central to it, a connection which cannot he admitted by one who denies the analytic/synthetic distinction, as Quine and his fellow nominalists did. So either one does accept the analytic/synthetic distinction, or one rejects at least this account of analogy-based unity of ‘signification.’ Grice makes no attempt here to decide between these alternatives. Grice’s second comment is that material introduced in Grice’s suggested elaboration of the notion of analogy, particularly the connection between concepts and conformity to laws or some such generalities, may serve to provide a needed explanation and justification of an initial idea that the applicability of a single defining formula, couched in terms of the ideas of genus, but also species, and differentia is a paradeigmatic condition, if not an indispensable condition, for identity of ‘sigification,’ never mind unity. We might, for a start, agree to treat a situation in which the applicability of an epithet to an item I1 rests on a conformity to exactly the same laws or generalities as does its application to item I2, as being a limiting case of partially perfect analogy. But situations in which no such interpretation at all is required may be treated as limiting cases of situations in which, though re-interpretation is required, one such re-interpretation is available which achieves such partial perfect analogy. As one might say, a law is perfectly analogous with itself. Situations, then, in which an epithet or expression E applies to a range of items I1, I2, … In, solely by virtue of the presence of a single ‘universal,’ and so of a single set of laws, may be legitimately regarded as a specially exemplary instance of a kind of unity which is required for identity of ‘signification.’ Both a proper assessment of Aristotle's contribution to metaphysics and the analysis of ‘meaning’ or ‘signification,’ and studies in the theory of meaning themselves might profit from a somewhat less localised attention to questions about the relation between a ‘universal’ and ‘signification’ than is visible in Grice’s reflections. Grice has it in mind to raise not the general question whether, despite what he calls the school of latter-day nominalists, an analysis of ‘signification’ requires an abstract entity such as a ‘universal,’ to which Grice assumes an affirmative answer), but rather the question in what way the concept of a ‘universal’ is to be supposed to be relevant to the analysis of ‘signification.’ Consideration of the practices of latter-day lexicographers, so far from supporting a charge that, at least on Grice’s interpretation of him, Aristotle proposes an illegitimate divorce between the concept of a ‘universal’ and the concept of ‘signification’ suggests that it would be proper to go a deal further than did Aristotle himself in championing such a divorce. There will be many different forms of connection between the varieties of the concept of a ‘universal’ which may be ‘signified’ by a non-equivocable expression beyond that countenanced by the tradition of the theory of definition alla Robinson, and even perhaps beyond the extensions to that theory envisaged by Aristotle himself. These forms will include some form of connection like that involved in metonymy or synecdoche, recognised by later grammatical theorists, and no doubt others as well. It would, Grice suggests, be a profitable undertaking to study carefully the contents of a good modern dictionary, with a view to constructing an inventory of these various modes of connection. Such an investigation would, Grice suspects, reveal both that, in a given case, the invocation of one mode of connection may be subordinate and posterior to the invocation of another, and also that there is no prescribed order or limitation of order which such invocations must observe. Grice suspects, also, that it might emerge that the question whether variations in ‘signification’ are thought of as synchronic or diachronic has no bearing on the nature of these uniting connections. The same form of connection may be available in both cases, and either case may in turn well be found to correspond with the range of such different figures of speech which conversational practice may typically employ for the effect of implicature. Should this conjecture turn out to be correct, the underlying explanation of its truth might, Grice would guess, run along the following lines. Rational communication, in pursuit of its co-operative purpose, encounters a boundless, indeed unpredictable, multitude – indeed multiplicity -- of distinct situations. Perhaps unlike a computer we shall not have, ready made, any vast array of forms of description and explanation from which to select what is suitable for a particular conversational occasion. We shall have to rely on our rational capacities, particularly those for imaginative construction and combination, to provide for our needs as they arise. It would not then be surprising that the operations will reflect, in this or that way, the character of the capacities on which we rely.  Grice confesses to only the haziest of conception bow such an idea might be worked out in detail. Which is a long way from the aequi-vocality of ‘being’! Enter Aequi-vocality. In his fourth Kant lecture Grice confesses to have been so far in the early stages of an attempt to estimate the prospects of what he names as an AEQUI-vocality thesis,” – that is, a thesis, or set of theses, which claims that an expression is UNI-vocal. In ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ the univocity is veiled under the guise of unification, but the spirit lives on!

GRICE E VIO

 

Grice turns to a third mode of unification, which he would describe as Cajetan in nature, and what is possibly the most baffling of the various ways explicitly suggested by Aristotle as being those in which what Grice is calling this unification or aequi-vocality the multiplicity of significations may arise, even if made less baffling by Vio – vide Ashford. These will be those cases in which the application of an epithet or expression E to a range of items is accounted for by an analogy detectable within that range. More explicitly, an analogy between the specific ‘universal’ which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplification of that ‘universal’ by this or that type of item. Even more explicitly, an analogy between the universals U1, U2, … Un, which determines the application of the epithet or expression, or between an exemplifications of U1, U2, … Un, by items of the sorts ly. lo etc., The puzzling character of Aristotle's treatment of this topic arises from a number of different factors. First, there are a few things which Aristotle himself might have done to aid our comprehension. He might have given us a firm list of examples of epithets or expressions, the application of which to a given range of items is to be accounted for in this way. Alternatively, Aristotle might have given us a reasonably clearer characterisation of the kind of accounting which analogy is supposed to provide, leaving it to us to determine the range of application of this kind of accounting. Unfortunately he does neither of these things. Aristotle only offers us the most meagre hints about the way in which analogy might ‘unify,’ via aequi-vocality, the various applications of an epithet. We are told, for example, that as seeing is in the eye, so understanding is in the soul with the implicature that this fact accounts for the application of see both to a case of optical vision and a case of intellectual ‘vision.’ He also suggests that analogy is responsible for the application of the calm both to an undisturbed body of sea water and to an undisturbed expanse of air. Such offerings do not get us very far. Furthermore, not surprisingly, where Aristotle seems to fear to tread his commentators are most reluctant to plant their own feet. Perhaps the least unhelpful suggestion comes from a latter-day commentator, not Avicenna, but the influential Oxford, indeed Scottish, philosopher W. D. Ross, who suggests, as Aristotle's view, that the application of good is attributable to the fact that within one category C1 items which are good are related to an item in general belonging to that category, in a way which is analogous to the way in which a good item (say, a good cabbage) in some second category C2 is related to the general run of items which belong to that second category. Apart from the obscurity in the presentation of this idea, Ross's suggestion takes for granted something which Aristotle himself does not tell us, viz. that the application of the epithet good is one exemplification of unification or aequi-vocality of a value-oriented concept which is the outcome of analogy. Ross's suggestion about good would, moreover, be at best only a description of one special case of analogical unification via aequi-vocality, and would not give us any general account of such unification. Grice adds that little supplementary assistance is derivable from those who study general concepts. Such philosophers seem to adhere to the principle that silence is golden when it comes to discussion of such questions as the relation between analogy, and her sisters: metaphor, simile, allegory, and parable. So far as Aristotle himself is concerned, it seems fairly clear to Grice that the primary notion behind the concept of analogy is that of ‘proportion’: a:b::c:d. This notion is embodied, for example, in Aristotle's treatment of just. where one kind of just is alleged to consist in a due proportion between return, reward, or penalty, and antecedent desert, merit, or demerit. But it does remains a bit of a mystery how what starts life as, or as something approximating to, a quantitative relationship gets converted into a non-quantitative relation of correspondence or affinity. It looks as if we might be thrown back upon what we might hope to be an inspired conjecture. Grice takes as task the provision of an example, congenial to Aristotle, of the unification by analogy of the application to a range of objects of some epithet. Grice expects this to involve the detection of an analogical link between the exemplifications of the variety of this or that universal which the epithet may be used to ‘signify.’ Grice’s chosen specimen is grow. In the case of grow, a number of different kinds of shifts might be thought of as possessing an analogical unification by aequi-vocality. One of these would be examples of shifts in respect of what might be termed a syntactical metaphysical or ontological category. A substance, indeed a physical substance like a lump of wax or a mass of metal, might be said to grow. It would be tempting here to suggest that the relevantly involved ‘universal,’ that of increase in size or getting larger, provides the foundational instance of the literal ‘signification’ or sense of a universal by the application of th expression grow. We have here, so to speak, the 'ground-floor' signification – dictiveness -- of grow. But now, not only the physical substance itself but some accident of the substance may also be said to grow. Not only the piece of wax, but its magnitude, some event or process in its history, its powers or causal efficacy and its aesthetic quality or beauty might each be said to grow. And it seems not unplausible to suggest that though growth on the part of these non-substantial accidents is different, and more or, again, less boringly connected with growth on the part of the substance, there will always be some kind of correspondence, indeed analogical connection, between grow in the case of a non-substantial item and grow in the initial case of a substantial item. Another and different kind of categorial variation may separate some of the universals which the grow may be used to ‘signify’ from others. These will be connected with differences in some sub-category within the category of substance within which fall different sorts of items which may be said to grow. Different universals may be ‘signified’ by someone who speaks of a plant as growing and by someone who speaks of a human being as growing. The connection between these diverse realisations of grow may rest on, say, vegetal, analogy. In what is called the grow of a plant, such as a rose, internally originated increase in size seems to occupy a prominent place. In the case of a human being, the kind of development which may be involved in the grow may be much more varied and complex. The link between the two distinct universals which may be ‘signified’ might be provided by analogy between the roles which such changes fulfill in the development of the very different kinds of substances which are being characterised. No doubt many further kinds of analogical connection would emerge within the general practice of attributing this or that grow. Grice’s next endeavour will be an attempt to supply some general account of the way in which the presence of analogy may serve to unify multiplicity of signification; and if such an account should be found to offer prospects of distinguishing analogy from other concepts, particularly metaphor (as conversational implicature, as in the song title, ‘You’re the cream in my coffee’ to use Grice’s example in ‘Logic and conversation,’ which belongs to the same general family, that would be a welcome aspect of the account. It is Grice’s idea that, in metaphorical -- rather than literal -- description, a universal is ‘signified’ (you’re my pride and joy), which though distinct from that which underlies the literal signification of the epithet (the cream in the coffee) is nevertheless recognisably similar to the literal signification. Grice comes then to the concept of analogy itself. Grice starts by considering this or that item, I1, I2, … In, any one of which may be called an S. Grice initially supposes that being an S consists in belonging to a substantial type or kind, or category S, though that supposition may be relaxed. Grice’s move is to assume that being an S, consists in being subject to a system of laws which jointly express the nature, metier, or essentia, of the type or kind Si. Further, these laws, which furnish the core theory of S,, are to be formulated in terms of a finite set of Si-core properties -- let us say P1 to Pn. Each law involves an ordered extract from the core set. Their totality governs any fully authentic Sy. This totality may well not include every law which applies to S,: but it does include every law which is deemed to be relevant to the identity or identification of Sy, every law which determines whether or not a particular item I1, I2, … In, is to count as an 5. Grice next considers not merely things each of which is an S, but also things each of which is an Sz. It remains an open question whether or not the type S is to be deemed identical with the type S1. Grice assumes that, as in the case of S, membership of S, is determined by conformity to a system of laws relating to those properties which are central to S2. Grice symbolises these properties by the set of devices Or ... Q.. We now have various possibilities to consider. The first is that every law which is central to the determination of Sz is a mirror image of a law which is central to S,; and that the converse of this supposition also obtains. To this end, we assume that the properties which are central to being an S, are the properties of the devices O, through Os; and that if a law involving a certain ordered extract from the set P through P, belongs to the central theory of S to a law involving an exactly corresponding ordered extract from the set O, through O, will belong to the central theory of S; and that the same holds in reverse. In that case, we are in the position to say that there is a perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz; in which case, it may also be tempting to say that the types S, and S, are essentially identical. We should recognize that if we yield to this temptation we are not thereby forced to say that Sy and S, are indistinguishable, they might, for example, be differently related to perception, only one of them, perhaps, being accessible to sight. We shall only be forced to allow that essentially, or theoretically, the types are not distinct. The possibility just considered is that of a total perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sa. There is also, however, the possibility of a merely partial pertect analogy between S, and Sz. That is to say part of the central theory of one type, say S, may mirror the whole of the central theory of Sz, or again may mirror some part of a central theory of Sz. In such a circumstance, one might be led to say, in one case, that the type S, is a special case of the type S,; or, in another case, that the types S, and S, both fall under a common super-type, determined by the limited area of perfect analogy between the central theories of S, and Sz. Another possibility will be that no perfect analogy, either total or partial, will hold between the two central theories. The best that can be found are imperfect analogies which will consist in laws central to one type approximating, to a certain degree, with the status of being analogues of laws central to the other. At this stage, Grice proposes a relaxation in the characterization of the signification of such symbols as 'S!', 'Sz etc., which till now I have been regarding as ‘signifying’ or denoting substantial types or kinds, reference to which is made in more or less regimented discourse of a theoretical or ‘alethic’ sort. But Grice allows for such symbols as being allowed to relate to what he hopes might be legitimately regarded as an informal precursor of the afore-mentioned substantial types, as expressing this or that concept of one or other classificatory sort, concepts which will be deployed in an unregimented description or explanations as pre-theoretical. Examples of such unregimented classificatory concepts might be concepts such as that of an investor, a doctor, a vehicle, a confidante, and so on. Grice would hope that in many ways their general character or metier might run parallel to that of their more regimented counterpart. In particular, Grice hopes and expects that the nature of such concepts would be bound up with conformity to a certain set of central generalities, like platitudes, truisms, etc. To be an investor or a vehicle will be to perform a metier, that is, to do a sufficient number of the kinds of things which are typically even stereotypically done by an investor or a vehicle. Grice expects, however, that the variety of possible forms of generalisation might considerably exceed the meagre armament which a theoretical enquirer normally permit themselves to employ. Grice also hopes and expects that the generalities which would be expressive of the nature of a particular classificatory concept would be formulable in terms of a limited body of features which would be central to the concept in question. This material might be sufficient to provide for the presence, from time to time, of analogy, at least of imperfect analogy, between such generalities which aro expressive of distinct classificatory concepts. When they occur, such analogies might be sufficient to provide for some unity or uni-vocality of ‘signification’ in the employment of a single epithet to ‘signify’ even different classificatory concepts; and this unity or aequi-vocality of ‘signification’, in turn, might be sufficient to justify the idea that, in such a case, the expression in question is used with a single ‘significatoin,’ lexical meaning, or Fregean sense.

Grice concludes his ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ with some suggestions about the interpretation of the concept of analogy as a possible foundation for the unity of ‘signification’ with two supplementary comments. His first comment is that there seems to be a good case for supposing that anyone who, like VIO did, accepts an account of an analogy-based unity of signification should not feel free to combine it with a rejection of the so-called analytic-synthetic distinction. After all, the analogy-based unity account relies crucially on a connection between the application of a particular concept and the application of a system of laws, or some such generalities, which is expressive of that concept. This, in tum, relies on the idea of a stock of further concepts, in terms of which these laws and generalities are to be formulated, being central to the original concept. But it seems plausible, if not mandatory, to suppose that such centrality involves a non-contingent connection between the original concept and the concepts which are said to be central to it, a connection which cannot he admitted by one who denies the analytic/synthetic distinction, as Quine and his fellow nominalists did. So either one does accept the analytic/synthetic distinction, or one rejects at least this account of analogy-based unity of ‘signification.’ Grice makes no attempt here to decide between these alternatives. Grice’s second comment is that material introduced in Grice’s suggested elaboration of the notion of analogy, particularly the connection between concepts and conformity to laws or some such generalities, may serve to provide a needed explanation and justification of an initial idea that the applicability of a single defining formula, couched in terms of the ideas of genus, but also species, and differentia is a paradeigmatic condition, if not an indispensable condition, for identity of ‘sigification,’ never mind unity. We might, for a start, agree to treat a situation in which the applicability of an epithet to an item I1 rests on a conformity to exactly the same laws or generalities as does its application to item I2, as being a limiting case of partially perfect analogy. But situations in which no such interpretation at all is required may be treated as limiting cases of situations in which, though re-interpretation is required, one such re-interpretation is available which achieves such partial perfect analogy. As one might say, a law is perfectly analogous with itself. Situations, then, in which an epithet or expression E applies to a range of items I1, I2, … In, solely by virtue of the presence of a single ‘universal,’ and so of a single set of laws, may be legitimately regarded as a specially exemplary instance of a kind of unity which is required for identity of ‘signification.’

Both a proper assessment of Aristotle's contribution to metaphysics and the analysis of ‘meaning’ or ‘signification,’ and studies in the theory of meaning themselves might profit from a somewhat less localised attention to questions about the relation between a ‘universal’ and ‘signification’ than is visible in Grice’s reflections. Grice has it in mind to raise not the general question whether, despite what he calls the school of latter-day nominalists, an analysis of ‘signification’ requires an abstract entity such as a ‘universal,’ to which Grice assumes an affirmative answer), but rather the question in what way the concept of a ‘universal’ is to be supposed to be relevant to the analysis of ‘signification.’ Consideration of the practices of latter-day lexicographers, so far from supporting a charge that, at least on Grice’s interpretation of him, Aristotle proposes an illegitimate divorce between the concept of a ‘universal’ and the concept of ‘signification’ suggests that it would be proper to go a deal further than did Aristotle himself in championing such a divorce. There will be many different forms of connection between the varieties of the concept of a ‘universal’ which may be ‘signified’ by a non-equivocable expression beyond that countenanced by the tradition of the theory of definition alla Robinson, and even perhaps beyond the extensions to that theory envisaged by Aristotle himself. These forms will include some form of connection like that involved in metonymy or synecdoche, recognised by later grammatical theorists, and no doubt others as well. It would, Grice suggests, be a profitable undertaking to study carefully the contents of a good modern dictionary, with a view to constructing an inventory of these various modes of connection. Such an investigation would, Grice suspects, reveal both that, in a given case, the invocation of one mode of connection may be subordinate and posterior to the invocation of another, and also that there is no prescribed order or limitation of order which such invocations must observe. Grice suspects, also, that it might emerge that the question whether variations in ‘signification’ are thought of as synchronic or diachronic has no bearing on the nature of these uniting connections. The same form of connection may be available in both cases, and either case may in turn well be found to correspond with the range of such different figures of speech which conversational practice may typically employ for the effect of implicature. Should this conjecture turn out to be correct, the underlying explanation of its truth might, Grice would guess, run along the following lines. Rational communication, in pursuit of its co-operative purpose, encounters a boundless, indeed unpredictable, multitude – indeed multiplicity -- of distinct situations. Perhaps unlike a computer we shall not have, ready made, any vast array of forms of description and explanation from which to select what is suitable for a particular conversational occasion. We shall have to rely on our rational capacities, particularly those for imaginative construction and combination, to provide for our needs as they arise. It would not then be surprising that the operations will reflect, in this or that way, the character of the capacities on which we rely.

Grice confesses to only the haziest of conception bow such an idea might be worked out in detail. Which is a long way from the aequi-vocality of ‘being’! Enter Aequi-vocality. In his fourth Kant lecture Grice confesses to have been so far in the early stages of an attempt to estimate the prospects of what he names as an AEQUI-vocality thesis,” – that is, a thesis, or set of theses, which claims that an expression is UNI-vocal. In ‘Aristotle on the multiplicity of being’ the univocity is veiled under the guise of unification, but the spirit lives on!

GRICE E VOLPI

 Recensione di V. Heidegger e Aristotele LYCAEUM Liceo Lizio, Daphne Editrice, Padova Pubblicato per la prima volta in: W. Schirmacher Ed.: Schopenhauers Aktualität. Un filosofo viene letto di nuovo. Schopenhauer-Studien 1/2. Passagen Verlag, Wien. Nella sua conferenza tenuta nel 1967 all'Accademia delle Scienze e delle Arti di Atene, Heidegger scrive: "L'arte corrisponde alla physis e tuttavia non è una replica o un'immagine di ciò che è già presente. Fisico e téchne si appartengono in modo misterioso. Ma l'elemento in cui physis e téchne appartengono insieme, e l'area in cui l'arte deve impegnarsi per diventare ciò che è in quanto arte, rimangono nascosti". (M. Heidegger: Denkerfahrungen, Francoforte sul Meno). Per chi quest'area rimane "nascosta"? Soprattutto per la nostra civiltà tecnica, che si sta diffondendo sempre di più, oltre tutte le frontiere, e quindi si sta privando di ogni possibilità di distanza autocritica. Eppure: non ne siamo in balia. PaganoEppure: non ne siamo in balia. Come è noto, Heidegger è spesso accusato di cadere nel misticismo pessimista con la sua concezione del "destino dell'essere" e di spiccare il volo verso l'antichità facendo il suo "passo indietro". Niente di tutto questo. Nella stessa conferenza si legge: "Fare un passo indietro significa ritirare il pensiero dalla civiltà mondiale, allontanarsi da essa, non negarlo, per coinvolgersi in ciò che dovrebbe rimanere impensato all'inizio del pensiero occidentale, ma che tuttavia è già menzionato lì e quindi predetto al nostro pensiero". (ibid.)Il tema di Heidegger, tuttavia, sembra continuare ad essere gravato da ogni tipo di pregiudizio nel mondo di lingua tedesca e in particolare nella Repubblica Federale. Basta pensare alle osservazioni simili a cliché di Jürgen Habermas nelle sue conferenze "Il discorso filosofico della modernità" (Francoforte sul Meno, 1985) per capire la natura grottesca di questo equivoco (se il tentativo di comprendere ilal fine di esemplificare la natura grottesca di questo malinteso (se si presume un tentativo di comprensione). E Aristotele? Oggi è considerato da molti come il "capostipite" o "l'originatore" della tecnologia dominante di oggi, vale a dire la tecnologia dell'informazione. Gli sforzi della "ricerca sull'intelligenza artificiale", ad esempio nella produzione di "sistemi esperti", hanno trovato il loro ricettario nella logica aristotelica. Con il suo libro intitolato semplicemente Heidegger e Aristotele, V. ci invita a un incontro tra questi pensatori che, al di là di questi cliché, porta alla questione stessa. Il dialogo di Heidegger con Aristotele è stato effettivamente un dialogo che dura tutta la vita, ma l'autore sottolinea giustamente tre punti salienti, vale a dire la presenza precoce di Aristotele nella questione dell'essere di Heidegger, in quanto spinge attraverso il filtro scolastico di Brentano e Braig fino a lui e conduce ad Aristotele; il periodo (circa dieci anni) della schiusa dell'essere e del tempo, quando   periodo dell'incubazione di Essere e Tempo, come tempo decisivo del dialogo, che si riflette nelle Lezioni di Marburgo così come in Essere e Tempo stesso; e infine la presenza di Aristotele dopo il "Kehre". Di conseguenza, il fulcro delle osservazioni di Volpi cade sul secondo climax, che è contrassegnato dal titolo "Verità, Soggetto, Temporalità". Heidegger incontra Aristotele sulla base della questione della costituzione ontologica della vita umana (o del "mondo della vita") lasciata aperta nella fenomenologia di Husserl. In questo incontro, che equivale a una differenziazione categoriale, lo sguardo si apre alla questione kantiana dell'unità del categorico, che, se ridotta a un soggetto finito, rivela il nesso tra soggettività (o "Dasein") e temporalità. Allo stesso tempo, la "tesi" centrale di Heidegger riguardo la comprensione metafisica dell'essere negli SIn contrasto con una concezione categoriale (o "gnoseologica") della verità, Heidegger (seguendo Husserl) cerca in Aristotele le tracce di una verità "fondante" precategoriale, per cui finché non si lascia il regno di un soggetto finito, tale "fondamento" si riferisce all'unità della percezione sensoriale e della comprensione rimane. L'autore spiega a grandi linee i punti chiave delle analisi di Heidegger dal De interpretatione e da alcuni passaggi della metafisica. Si tratta, tra l'altro, di mostrare fino a che punto la struttura del logos predicativo conduca non solo alla questione della "verità", ma soprattutto alla questione della "verità", cioè a un senso ontologico pre-predicativo della verità. La psiche è "nella" verità, cioè è in via di "scoperta" (aletheuein). Wä Mentre la verità predicativa riguarda la verità o la falsità dell'affermazione, il livello ontologico riguarda il "sentire" o il "non sentire" (noein / agnoein) dell'autorivelante. In altre parole, l'essere, temporalmente preconcetto come "presenza", rende possibile predicare il "vero" e il "falso". Questo preconcetto temporale dell'essere, come giustamente nota l'autore, costituisce la vera "scoperta" di Heidegger, che lo conduce a un passaggio critico attraverso la storia della metafisica. In una seconda fase, Volpi spiega il certo parallelismo tra le determinazioni ontologiche di "Dasein", "Zuhandenheit" e "Vorhandenheit" (come i tre modi di essere che Heidegger discute in dettaglio in Essere e tempo) e le distinzioni aristoteliche tra praxis, poiesis e theoria, per cui, secondo Volpi, la corrispondenza praxis / "Dasein" sembra insolita a prima vista. Qui l'autore mostra, come mi sembra,La svolta decisiva di Heidegger nella sua critica del precedente predominio di una definizione dell'essere umano orientata alla teoria cognitiva. È anche qui che si trova il punto di contatto di Heidegger con il pensiero "pratico" di Aristotele nell'Etica Nicomachea (in particolare nel Libro VI), per cui la sorprendente (!) parallelismo che emerge da questo dialogo, ad esempio in determinazioni come "coscienza" / phronesis, "preoccupazione" / orexis, "determinazione" / prohairesis, "sensibilità" / pathe, fino all'interpretazione di "comprensione" nel senso di nous praktikós. Per quanto riguarda la questione del tempo, il terzo punto focale dell'analisi di Volpi di questo secondo climax nell'incontro tra Heidegger e Aristotele, l'esperienza cairologica (cristiana) contro l'esperienza "cronologica" della temporalità è importante per Heidegger. Heidegger matura gradualmente, secondo Volpi, alla sua visione secondo cui la temporalità rappresenta la struttura della vita umana  Heidegger matura gradualmente, secondo Volpi, alla sua visione secondo cui la temporalità rappresenta la struttura della vita umana. In questo processo di maturazione, Heidegger esamina criticamente la concezione naturalistica aristotelica del tempo dimostrando, sulla base di un'analisi della determinazione del tempo in fisica, la definizione aristotelica come la questione della connessione tra il tempo e la "psiche" (contante), cioè come la questione della determinazione ontologica della "psiche". Il recensore non può qui che fare riferimento al testo analiticamente "cristallino" dell'autore, che padroneggia magistralmente questo difficile confronto tra Heidegger e Aristotele su una questione così centrale. dalla concezione aristotelica ("volgare") del tempo, il percorso conduce poi all'analisi della "temporalità" così come della "temporalità", da cui si possono cogliere solo il primus e il posterius del movimento nella loro dimensionalità (a cui appartiene anche il nunc)da dove solo il primus e il posterius del moto possono essere colti nella loro dimensionalità (a cui appartiene anche il nunc). In questo modo Heidegger, a partire da Aristotele, arriva alla struttura temporale del "Dasein" (in Essere e tempo). La presenza di Aristotele dopo il "Kehre", come si intitola l'ultima parte del libro, indica innanzitutto la radicalizzazione della metafisica da parte di Heidegger (ad esempio nell'opera "Physis") abbandonando il progetto (metafisico) di una "ontologia fondamentale". Tuttavia, l'autore approfondisce la presenza di Aristotele negli anni dal 1929 al 1931, in cui sono in primo piano le questioni del "posto" del "logos" nell'evento della verità (il suo potere di formazione del mondo), dell'essere come presenza e come verità (l'essere come "energeia") fino alla scoperta decisiva dell'essere come physis (come presumibilmente sperimentavano i "presocratici") e la sua "cattura" nella techne. Il fenomeno della tecnologia è descritto dal 'tardo' Heidegger inradicalmente messa in discussione nella misura in cui raggiunge l'operatività (inizialmente valutata positivamente) del "a portata di mano" a dimensioni quasi mostruose o distruttive. D'altra parte, Heidegger sottolinea che la techne rappresenta l'effettivo "opposto" della physis per i greci, cioè ciò per cui la physis è ricevuta nella sua apertura e "occultamento", così come quella per cui i physei onta sono riconosciuti nelle sue "forme" (eidos, idea) in modo tale che qualcosa di corrispondente è contrastato. Tuttavia, questo "opposto" di techne e physis non significa (ancora) la perdita della physis nella sua dimensione "travolgente". Ciò che Heidegger realizza nell'opera "Physis", secondo l'autore giustamente, è un'interpretazione "epocale" di Aristotele (in entrambi i sensi della parola), cioè una "traduzione" di questioni che sembravano da tempo superate, mentre in realtà sono letteralmente alla base della nostra moderna concezione della natura e della tecnologia. Volpi lo sottolinea espressamente nello Schl Volpi lo sottolinea espressamente nel capitolo finale. Soprattutto per un'analisi della "modernità", il dialogo tra Heidegger e Aristotele offre punti di riferimento decisivi. Due osservazioni critiche concludono questo lavoro: l'essenza della tecnologia moderna realizza davvero l'impeto originario del logos greco? E fino a che punto si può essere d'accordo con il "finitismo" di Heidegger secondo cui il tempo forma il logos (e non il contrario, come per i greci? V. suggerisce, unendo in una certa misura entrambe le questioni, che esiste un "logos polivalente" che deve essere riconquistato in contrapposizione a un "logos unidimensionale"). Non si dovrebbe parlare anche di 'techne (o tecnica!) polivalente? Ma che dire della questione dell'arte? Eros non è forse un grande demone che sa interpretare? Heidegger in dialogo con Platone?

GRICE E WINSPEARE

 

Luigi Speranza -- Grice e Winspeare: la ragione conversazionele e l’elogio d’Antonino – “Della filosofia romana” – la scuola di Portici – filosofia napoletana – filosofia campanese -- filosofia italiana – Luigi Speranza, pel Gruppo di Gioco di H. P. Grice, The Swimming-Pool Library (Portici). Keywords: lessicografia filosofica – linguistic botanising – storia della filosofia – Cicerone – Antonino. Filosofo napoletano. Filosofo campanese. Filosofo italiano. Portici, Napoli, Campania. Essential Italian philosopher. “My Italian friends do not consider me Italian, though!” Winspeare’s ancestors are from Yorkshire in a bad time. Henry VIII. “So the king’s option was clear: either your head off or move to Capri. I chose the second.” Opere: “Delle confessioni spontanee de’ rei” (Simoniana, Napoli); “L’abuso feudale” (Trani, Napoli); “Voti de’ Napolitano (Napoli); “La voce di Napodano; ossia, illustrazione del patto di Capuana e Nido” (Trani, Napoli); “Le Leggi di Cicerone” (Trani, Napoli); “Delle chiese ricettizie del regno” (Trani, Napoli); “Filosofia” (Trani, Napoli); “Dissertazioni legali” (Agrelli, Napoli); “La colonia perpetua ed il diritto feudale abolito” (Pesole, Napoli). Della filosofia romana. La filosofia romana comincia da CICERONE. A CICERONE e dovuta la lode di aver dato la cittadinanza latina alla disciplina greca, e di avere eccitato in questo studio l’emulazione de’ suoi cittadini. Di Cicerone è il vanto di avere richiamato la scienza ai principi dell’Accademia e di averla applicata alla vita si private che publica, e di darli un linguaggio che prima non aveva. Pe’quali meriti, Cicerone raccolge in se la gloria dei maestri greci. Sapiente come Socrate, eloquente come Platone, erudito come Aristotele, e austero come Zenone, Cicerone compende in se le più chiare menti di Grecia, sì che risplende nel mondo intelligente, non solamente come il luminare della filosofia latina, ma come il più ornato, il più elegante, e il più retto ingegno, che onra la spezie umana. Che se mancogli il merito dell'invenzione, ne ha bene un altro che quello eguaglia ed avanza, cioè l'essere stato tra gl’antichi il più utile alla filosofia pratica, avendo rimosso dalla speculativa la investigazione della causa naturale, e dimostralo l’unità del principio, a cui si annodano la psicologia e la morale. Infatti, avendo, come Socrate, stabilito per scopo d’ogni filosofia la conoscenza di se medesimo, da questo fa nascere la conoscenza del divino, la celeste origine delle anime umane e l’ordine morale degl’esseri creati, il fine de’ beni e de’ mali, la cognizione del sommo bene, il principio dell’obligazione naturale, e la nozione di quella eterna legge che tutto modera e governa. Avendo così dato alla filosofia un fine vero e utile alla vita umana, poco entrar volle ne’ concetti astratti, e forse disprezzogli al par di Socrate. Questo ha fatto a molti dire che Cicerone nell' esporre filosofia non sempre penetrato addentro nel suo senso, e fosse quasi rimaso straniero a quella esoterica sapienza, che taluni tanto più predicano e ammirano, quanto più di tenebroso trovano nelle sue concezioni. E qui domanderemmo, se non è arroganza de’ moderni il tassare di poca penetrazione la più luminosa mente dell'antichità. Cicerone abbraccia tutte le parti del sapere umano, svolge le più gravi questioni di filosofia intellettuale, e spogliandole de’ sofismi della dialettica le rendette facili e popolari. E vorremmo ancora sapere, se possa imputarsi a difetto di scienza l’avere ommesso quelle controversie astratte, che non solamente non contribuiscono alla perfezione della cognizione, ma la fanno in falsa parte piegare? Sarà facile il rispondere a chiunque farassi a considerare le parti singole della filosofia trattate da Cicerone, prendendole dal quadro che Cicerone stesso ne fa nella introduzione d’uno de' suoi libri filosofici. Ne’ libri accademici Cicerone vuole dimostrare la prima e più importante verità della cognizione umana, la certezza delle sorgenti delle idee. In ciò fare, origine e realità della umana segue per rispetto a' sensi la dottrina del Portico, che a quelli dato ha cognizione più che non ha concesso Aristotele, o sia define e determina il comprensibile de’ sensi ne’ termini stessi della scuola del Portico. Dal Portico Cicerone deduce, esser la verità de’ sensi una condizione necessaria della natura, comprovata dalla differenza che la natura stessa stabilito tra’l piacere e il dolore. Ma accanto al principio della sensazione, Cicerone colloca la virtù intuitiva dell’anima come affalto distinta da quello, o sieno le prime nozioni impresse dalla natura, senza le quali l’anima puo nè intendere nè ragionare -- Tuscul., De legib., Academ. --. Visum, impressum, effictumque ex eo unde esset; quale esse non possel ex eo, unde non esset. Lucullus. Circa la dottrina dell’idee, Cicerone espone storicamente il concetto di idea dell’Accademia, senza impugnarlo o sostenerlo. Cicerone narra lo strazio che fatto ne ha Aristotele, insieme co’ suoi peripatetici nel Lico; lascia da banda la questione del come le nozioni nascose e adombrate nell’anima si sviluppano, ma riconobbe come indispensabile la necessità d’un secondo principio tutto intellettuale, senza del quale e impossibile spiegare le operazioni della mente, l'astrarre, il generalizzare, l'inventare, e sopratutto il prodigioso fenomeno della memoria. Conforme a’ principi della umana cognizione e il resto del suo sistema conoscenza intellettuale, che espone nelle “Tusculane” e ne’ saggi intorno a’ fini de’ beni e di se medesimo de mali. Per la contemplazione di se medesimo, introdusce l'anima alla cognizione della immortalità ed immaterialità della sua sostanza, della origine divina da cui emana, dello scopo della vita, e del sommo bene cui debbe aspirare. E in prima, la più importante qualità dell'anima, siccome CICERONE avverte, è l'intuizione di se medesimo, la qual dote è appunto una conseguenza di quel principio d’intellezione che la natura ha in lei impresso, che non si acquista co' sensi, e che nella più matura età quando i sensi declinano, diviene più retto e perspicace. Dalla virtù (andreia), che l'animo ha di vedere se medesimo e le qualità sue, e dalla forza che ha in se di volere e di muovere, sente l'uomo essere cotesta virtù (andreia) un principio proprio, non prodotto d’altra esterna forza, e scopre essere quel principio stesso il quale muove la materia, affatto simile all’azione, che dà moto e vita all’universo; d'onde conclude non essere materiale o corporea, nè terrena o mortale, ma celeste ed eterna. Nè solamente dal principio della volontà e del moto ricava l'immortalità e l'immaterialità della sostanza sua, ma si bene dall’altre doti intellettuali, di cui scorgesi arricchita: dalla facoltà di pensare, di ritenere e di richiamare le idee e le nozioni passate, di antivedere le future, e di abbracciare col pensiero il divino, le opere sue, e l'infinito stesso, che n'è il principale attributo. In somma sviluppando il precetto di Socrate, conoscite stesso, o sia investiga quale sia l’animo tuo, Cicerone fa da quello derivare i tre primi dogmi della naturale sapienza dell' uomo, l’esistenza del divino, l'immaterialità, e l’immortalità dell’anima umana. E allorchè dall’interna investigazione dell'animo passa alla contemplazione de gl’obgetti esterni, e delle altre opere della natura, quanto più luminoso non diviene il concetto del divino, della dignità dell'uomo, della sua futura sorte, e del vero scopo della vita? Delle quali magnificenze sarebbe l'uomo muto e indifferente spettatore al pari dei bruti, se non avesse sviluppato entro di se le nozioni del proprio essere, e delle relazioni sue colle altre creature, e coll'autore stesso dell'universo Academ. “Animo ipso animum videre”. A stabilire poi la vera nozione del divino, ne’ libri “de natura deorum” vuole Cicerone esporre le principali opinioni delle scuole, l'accademica, il portico, e il giardino; e sbandita questa -- la quale dava al divino per suo unico fondamento la pratica credenza degl’uomini e rendevala affatto inutile alla vita -- dimostra come gl’accademici discordassero dai filosofi del portico nelle parole più che nella sostanza. Ciascuna di quelle due scuole non pertanto ha una parte vera: il concetto del divino, ricavato dall'opera dell'universo, e degl’accademici, i quali ereditano l'avevano dagl’accademici: l'altro della provvidenza, che tutto regge e dispone per la utilità dell'uomo, e del Portico. Ma costoro d'altra parte ammetteno dogmi, e commettevano insieme principii tra loro incompatibili, come la natura animata cogl’attributi del divino, il fato colla provvidenza e colla libertà dell’umane azioni. La stessa loro virtù (andreia), o il sommo bene non puo accomodarsi al viver pratico degl’uomini, dapoichè e collocata in un estremo tale, che per esso toglievasi ogni merito o biasimo ai fatti, buoni o tristi che sono, se pur non toccassero l'apice della perfezione. Per esso l'uomo sapiente divene un essere ideale, che non puo scontrarsi sulla terra. I doni della natura, la sanità, il vigore, la bellezza, le sostanze sono agguagliate a’ difetti e alle privazioni contrarie. Il piacere scambiassi col dolore. Le relazioni tra gl’uomini, gl’ufizi della vita, la prudenza, l’ordine, le virtù (andreia) civili, la cura de’ publici negozii, e la domestica economia, divenivano tutte qualità di convenzione, estranee alla sapienza e alla vera virtù (andreia). A rimuovere l'ostentazione di questa scabrosa virtù (andreia), dopo avere esposto le opinioni delle greche scuole, Cicerone dimostra quanto di vano fosse nelle parole e ne’ nuovi vocaboli introdotti dal Portico, e come il giusto mezzo si trova nell’emendazioni di Panezio, il quale concilia Zenone, cogl’accademici e co’ peripatetici del lieco. Tale e lo scopo de’ suoi libri intorno a’ fini de’ beni e de’ mali, insieme co’quali va letto l'altro del fato, che scrive per accordare insieme la dottrina dell'ordine della natura colla provvidenza, e colla libertà delle umane azioni -- libro, per altro, di cui ci rimane soltanto un malconcio avanzo. Non oseremmo fare la stessa apologia de’ libri intorno alla divinazione, nè sapremmo dire, se avesse Cicerone inteso sostenere la verità delle scienze divinatorie per l'autorità del portico, o per la necessità di ri spettare una dottrina popolare, a cui non avrebbe potuto impunemente contraddire. Forse la maggior lode di quella opera potrebbe ricavarsi dal filosofico concetto che in essa sovente traluce, cioè che v' ha una provvidenza conservatrice, della cui assistenza la mente umana senle il bisogno, per modo che gli stessi prestigii e le superstizioni delle arti divinatorie sono la pratica espressione di tal bisogno. Quae est causa istarum angustiarum gloriosa ostentatio in constituendo summo bono. De Finibus. Le opere sin qua esposte abbracciano tutta la filosofia speculativa di Cicerone. Non sono meno luminose quelle della filosofia pratica: i libri degl’ufizi contengono l’applicazione della dottrina del Portico, secondo le emendazioni di Panezio, a’ portamenti della vita; siccome i libri della republica e delle leggi derivarono dagli stessi principi le regole per la vita publica, e per lo civile reggimento de’ popoli. Per Cicerone, in somma, la filosofia nacque in Roma matura, senza passare per l'età dell'infanzia, siccome aveva fatto in Grecia. Negli studi della umana sapienza, la ragione romana ha per guida la sperienza, o sia la storia dell’opinioni e degl’errori del più perspicace e il luminato popolo del mondo, il quale figura come l'antesignano e il luminare di tutti gl’altri nella carriera delle lettere e delle scienze. Cicerone e eclettico, perchè altra parte non resta a chi sopraggiugne nella maturità del sapere, fuorchè il giudicare e lo scegliere. Ma l'avere esercitato il giudizio e la scelta in tutte le parti della filosofia; lavere signoreggiato i pensieri de’ greci con un criterio sempre libero e retto; e l'aver dato ai pensieri della scienza l’espressione, o sia il linguaggio di cui i romani mancavano, gli meritarono presso i suoi un primato, che altro sapiente mai non ha presso la propria nazione. In conferma di che giova osservare, che in tutta la durata del romano impero, e in mezzo a tanti sommi uomini i quali arricchirono ogni parte del sapere cogli scritti loro; non apparve più alcuno che fosse stato comparato a Cicerone, si che Cicerone è solo modello della sana filosofia tra’ latini, come Socrate tra’ greci. Della filosofia pratica sopratutto Cicerone e benemerito, dapoichè per lui la dottrina del Portico passa dalla scuola nel foro, e nel grande teatro del mondo. Da questa la giurisprudenza attinse le cardinali nozioni della giustizia, e dell’obligazioni, proprie a stringere e consolidare i legami delle civili associazioni. E sebbene nelle mani de’ giureconsulti la dottrina del portico acquistato ha una tinta di disputabile, aliena dalla sua naturale rigidezza, e avesse da Seneca ricevuto un certo orpello declamatorio; pur tuttavolta fu da Arriano nel manuale di Epitteto richiamata a’ severi principii di Zenone e di Cleanto. Certamente in Roma ottenne successi maggiori che in Grecia, per chè ivi divenne madre della sapienza civile, ed ha il vanto di aver dato al mondo due perfetti modelli di re, nelle persone di Marc’Aurelio Antonino e di Antonino. Restiamo dall’internarci negli ultimi periodi della filosofia del basso impero. Tra perchè le vecchie nazioni che il componevano, nella condizione stessa della loro vita civile trovano invincibili osta coli a’ progressi della ragione; e perchè gl’ultimi aneliti della filosofia andano in quel tempo a scontrarsi col grande avvenimento, che rinnovar doveva la religione, la coltura e i costumi di tutti i popoli. Basta dire che il ritratto dell’opinioni e de'costumi della ultima età dell'impero romano: lo scetticismo e l'indifferenza per ogni verità formano la doltrina de’ sapienti. La corruzione scioglieva ogni giorno i vincoli sociali. La superstizione e l'ignoranza hanno ottenebrato la superficie della terra. Keywords: elogio d’Antonino. Grice: “Hailing remotely from the Catholic North Riding of Yorkshire and settling in the most beautiful coastline in the world, Winspeare knew all you need to know about Cudworth, and what he calls ‘percezione.’ I would call him an Oxonian.” Grice: “My favourite Winspeare is his ‘dictionary’: obviously he found Italian furrin enough to want to organize things in a sort of thesaurum. Speranza, on the other hand, likes Winspeare’s idea of ‘volgarizzazione’ of Cicero’s ‘De Legibus.’ – one of the most boring tracts in legalese, but then at Naples at the time, you HAD to be a lawyer!” Keywords: Cicerone -- Refs.: H. P. Grice, “Winspeare, Speranza, Napoli, and me!”The Grice Papers, BANC MSS 90/135c, The Bancroft. Luigi Speranza, “Grice e Winspeare,” The Swimming-Pool Library, Villa Speranza, Liguria. Winspeare.