H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZIONE -- I VERBALI: PAREYSON

 G.: Pareyson again. S.: And existence. G.: Yes, though one suspects the word is doing more work than the Latin will tolerate. S.: You mean existere. G.: I do. Let us begin modestly. A est. S.: The copula, unambitious and sufficient. G.: Precisely. Now Pareyson wishes to say more. S.: A existit. G.: And one asks: what more has been said. S.: That A stands out, emerges. G.: That is the etymological temptation: ex-istere, to stand forth. S.: Ex stare, rather than merely esse. G.: Yes, though Cicero does not seem to have felt deprived by est. S.: Nor did Caesar. G.: Nor any Roman general, which may be why they conquered the world without existentialism. S.: You are unfair. G.: I am precise. Latin already has est. Why does it need existit. S.: To mark actuality perhaps, as opposed to mere predication. G.: Then we must distinguish. A est B. S.: Predication. G.: A existit. S.: Assertion of being in a fuller sense. G.: Fuller or merely inflated. S.: Pareyson would not accept the latter. G.: Pareyson is writing in 1930, and the air is thick with Jaspers and Heidegger. S.: And Abbagnano not far behind. G.: Yes, and the scent of an -ism forming. S.: Existentialism. G.: A deplorable word, but a successful one. S.: You prefer verbs to nouns. G.: I prefer that verbs remain verbs. S.: Existere then. G.: Let us keep to Latin. A stat. S.: That A stands. G.: A existit. S.: That A stands forth. G.: A insistit. S.: That A stands in. G.: The prepositions proliferate, but do we gain clarity. S.: Perhaps nuance. G.: Or merely a family resemblance of confusions. S.: You sound like Ryle. G.: I anticipate him. Collingwood would have been more patient. S.: We are between them, after all. G.: Yes, a fortunate interval. Collingwood still breathing, Ryle preparing to tidy. S.: And Pareyson, in Turin, writing of existence. G.: With a thesis on Jaspers. S.: Which already signals the direction. G.: Yes, from est to existit, and from there to a philosophy of existence. S.: You object to the move. G.: I question its necessity. S.: Aristotle might snare you here. G.: He often tries. Ontology is full of snares. S.: Owen would agree. G.: Owen enjoys pointing them out. S.: Then what of existentia. G.: A noun, feminine, like essentia and substantia. S.: You distrust the nominalisation. G.: Deeply. The move from A est to existentia is already suspicious. S.: Yet philosophers cannot resist. G.: Because nouns give an illusion of possession. S.: Of having something to point at. G.: Exactly. Whereas est is modest and refuses to be possessed. S.: Pareyson would say that existence is not possession but interpretation. G.: That is already a shift of terrain. S.: From ontology to hermeneutics. G.: Yes. And there he may be safer. S.: Because interpretation admits activity. G.: And avoids reifying existence into a thing. S.: So existere becomes something like an act. G.: Or a condition of acts. S.: Then A existit might mean that A is there to be interpreted. G.: That would be closer to Pareyson than to Cicero. S.: Cicero would simply say A est. G.: And then get on with the argument. S.: You admire that. G.: I admire economy. S.: Yet your own theory will speak of meaning beyond what is said. G.: Indeed. But that is a matter of implicature, not ontology. S.: Still, there is a parallel. G.: Go on. S.: Just as A est may implicate more than it says, A existit may pretend to say more than it can justify. G.: Excellent. Existit may carry an implicature of depth. S.: Of seriousness. G.: Of philosophical gravity. S.: Without adding propositional content. G.: Precisely. It may be an instance of what one might later call a conversational enrichment. S.: Or inflation. G.: If one is less charitable. S.: Pareyson would insist on the enrichment. G.: And I would ask how the hearer recovers the intended difference between est and existit. S.: By context. G.: Always the refuge. S.: But also by shared philosophical expectations. G.: Which is to say, by a kind of conversational background. S.: Exactly. G.: Then we are already in my territory. S.: You would reduce existence to a matter of use. G.: Not reduce, but analyse. S.: And Pareyson would resist. G.: He would say that existence precedes use. S.: That interpretation is constitutive. G.: Yes, the macro-hermeneutics. S.: Whereas you prefer micro-pragmatics. G.: Nicely put. S.: Then let us return to Latin. Existat. G.: Subjunctive. S.: Let A exist. G.: A wish, or a supposition. S.: Existit. G.: Indicative, more assertive. S.: Exstitit. G.: Perfect, it has come forth. S.: The tense system gives you shades without metaphysics. G.: Precisely my point. Latin grammar already does the work that modern philosophy tries to rename. S.: Yet Pareyson would say that grammar is not enough. G.: He would, and perhaps he is right that grammar does not exhaust experience. S.: Then experience again. G.: Another word that invites inflation. S.: You are difficult to please. G.: Only difficult to persuade. S.: Then what of Heidegger. G.: A master of turning verbs into events. S.: And nouns into mysteries. G.: Yes. Sein, Dasein, all that. S.: Ryle reviewed him with some impatience. G.: Quite rightly. S.: And you share that impatience. G.: I share the suspicion that one is being asked to admire rather than to understand. S.: Pareyson is milder. G.: More Italian. S.: Which means more rhetorical. G.: And more explicit about interpretation. S.: Like Parisio with Horace. G.: Exactly. Commentary rather than concealment. S.: So Parisio would gloss existit carefully. G.: He would place est on top, existit beneath, and comment. S.: And not let himself replace the text. G.: A virtue lost in some moderns. S.: You are thinking of Ackrill again. G.: I often am. S.: Then the lesson. G.: Keep the verb, do not inflate the noun, and attend to what is implicated rather than what is pompously asserted. S.: And Pareyson. G.: Read him as offering an interpretive framework, not a new ontology. S.: So A existit becomes an invitation. G.: To interpret A as more than merely predicated. S.: And your question remains. G.: What precisely is added. S.: And how the hearer is to recover it. G.: Always that. S.: Then we have come full circle. G.: As circles tend to do. S.: A est. G.: A existit. S.: A is. G.: A is said to stand forth. S.: And we ask what that implicates. G.: And whether the implicature is warranted. S.: A suitably Oxonian ending. G.: Dry, but serviceable.