H. P. GRICE E J. L. SPERANZA: LA CONVERSAZOINE -- I VERBALI: LO

 

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

 

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Lombardi: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale.  Franco Lombardi (Napoli, Campania): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains implicature as a rationally accountable transition from what is said to what is meant, under cooperative expectations that let hearers justify an inference and let speakers be held responsible for inviting it. Franco Lombardi, by contrast, is not primarily a pragmatics theorist but a historian and interpreter of the modern Italian tradition (Naples-born, later active in Rome; author of works such as La filosofia della pratica, 1935, and later Il mondo degli uomini), and his “conversational reason” is better understood as a cultural-historical rationality: the way a philosophical tradition maintains continuity by transmitting problems, styles, and conceptual inheritances across generations and institutions. On that model, what is “implied” in a philosophical utterance often depends less on local maxims of relevance than on long-range background—shared intellectual memory, inherited polemics, and the tacit cues by which Italian philosophy signals its lineage (Kant read through Italian debates, Marx filtered through a specific civic culture, the weight of naming and renaming, such as the playful Bonaiuti/Galilei motif in your passage). The comparison therefore contrasts Grice’s micro-account of inference in everyday conversation with Lombardi’s macro-account of how philosophical meaning travels through time: Grice asks how an individual speaker can mean more than she says and how a hearer can rationally retrieve that surplus; Lombardi asks how a community of thinkers sustains a living “conversation” in which what is not said is often what everyone already knows from the tradition. In this perspective, Lombardi helps explain why Grice’s cooperative presumptions are never purely abstract: they depend on shared forms of life and shared histories; but Grice also helps sharpen Lombardi’s historiographical enterprise by reminding us that tradition works not by mystical transmission but by publicly intelligible, criticizable inferential habits—ways of letting the reader supply what is left unsaid, and of making that supply answerable to reasons. Grice: “At Oxford, we say Galileo – in Italy, where they know better, they say BONAIUTO!” The surname BONAIUTI became associated with the Galilei family through an ancestor named Galileo Bonaiuto. Here’s how it happened. In the fifteenth century, Galileo Bonaituo was a prominent physician, professor, and politician in Florence. In the the late fourteenth century, his descedants began refering to thsmelves as GALILEI in his honour. While the family officially retained the BONAIUTI surname for generations, they started using GALILEI or GALILEO informally in honour of his ancestor. The famous astronomer Galileo Galilei inherited both his given name and the family name (Galilei) fom his ancestor, Galileo Bonaiuti. Therefore, the association begain in the late 14th and 15th centuries through the prominence and influence of Galileo Bonaiuti in Florence. Grice: “The Italians have a thing for the plural – witness all the surnames ending in -i. True, Lombardo IS a philosopher, too!” Grice: “I like L.; he took seriously my idea of Philosophy’s Longitudinal Uniity, and like Passmore or Warnock, engaged iin a study of the ‘last hundred years of Italian philosophy. This shows that his interests on Kant, etc., are Italian-based, mainly!” Il padre e avvocato e docente di diritto e procedura penale a Napoli, già allievo prediletto di Bovio, deputato prima e dopo il fascismo, autore di scritti vari di sociologia. La madre Rosa Pignatari fu nipote di  Ciccotti, nella cui casa era cresciuta. Tradusse alcuni degli scritti di Marx nelle Opere edite dal Ciccotti e la Storia del movimento operaio di Edouard Dolleans.  Laureato e libero docente in filosofia lavora in filosofia. Pubblica “Il mondo degli uomini” (Firenze, Le Monnier) Insegna a Roma. Presidente della Società Filosofica Italiana e (sin dalla fondazione) della Società filosofica romana, diresse il "Centro di Ricerca per le Scienze Morali e Sociali" presso l'Istituto di filosofia della Roma. Grice: Caro Lombardi, mi ha sempre divertito come, a Oxford, diciamo "Galileo", mentre in Italia, dove avete il senso della storia, si preferisce "Bonaiuto"! La pluralità dei cognomi italiani mi affascina, soprattutto quando si riflette nella filosofia. Tu, con la tua attenzione all’unità longitudinale della filosofia e lo studio della tradizione italiana, dimostri quanto sia ricca questa prospettiva. Lombardi: Grazie Grice, hai ragione: la tradizione italiana ha sempre valorizzato il legame tra passato e presente, anche nei nomi. Ho cercato di mostrare, soprattutto negli ultimi cent’anni di filosofia italiana, come la nostra riflessione sia profondamente intrecciata con la storia e la pluralità, proprio come la famiglia Galilei che porta dentro sé Bonaiuti. L’unità della filosofia, per me, passa attraverso questa pluralità di voci. Grice: Mi piace molto il tuo modo di concepire la filosofia come un mondo di uomini, che tu hai indagato con passione. L’idea che il concetto si apra alla vita, come dice Limone, è preziosa: la filosofia non è solo una sequenza di teorie, ma una conversazione viva, fatta di implicature, dialoghi, e storia personale. Lombardi: Concordo, Grice. La filosofia, per me, è anche un modo per costruire consenso e dialogo, come insegno ai miei studenti e nei miei scritti. La pluralità dei cognomi, delle idee e delle voci è la forza della nostra civiltà filosofica. E come diciamo a Napoli, “chi va piano va sano e va lontano”: anche la filosofia cresce meglio se dialoga, ascolta, e si apre al pluralismo. Lombardi, Franco (1935). La filosofia della pratica. Napoli.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Longano: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’UOMO NATURALE.  Francesco Longano (Ripalimosani, Campobasso, Molise): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale dell’UOMO NATURALE. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains implicature as a rationally defensible step from what is said to what is meant: hearers recover extra content because speakers are presumed to be cooperating under norms that make indirect communication accountable and criticizable. Longano’s Enlightenment project (Ripalimosani 1728–1796; a Genovesi pupil; author of works such as Piano di un corpo di filosofia morale (1764), Dell’uomo naturale (1767), and later the Latin Philosophiae rationalis elementa including De arte logica on ideas and signs) approaches “reason” less as a local discipline of inference in talk and more as a general art of thinking and reforming human life: signification is rooted in a naturalistic and psycho-somatic conception of the person, where passions, imagination, and social needs belong to the very conditions under which signs function. Compared to Grice, Longano is not isolating a mechanism that distinguishes what is said from what is conversationally implied; rather, he supplies a broader anthropology and semiotic orientation in which the study of signs is continuous with the study of the “natural man,” education, and civil life—so that meaning is already embedded in the bodily and social economy that makes reasoning possible. The contrast, then, is between Grice’s micro-theory of communicative accountability (how a speaker can mean more than she says, and how the hearer can justify that inference) and Longano’s macro-theory of signification as part of a holistic human science (how ideas, signs, truth/error, and the non-rational powers of the mind jointly shape rational agency). But there is also a strong continuity: Longano’s attention to the natural basis of signification and to the humanly workable “art of thinking” helps motivate why Grice distinguishes natural meaning from speaker-meaning and why he treats conversational rationality as a practical norm rather than a mere formalism—both see reason as something that lives in human practices, even if Grice locates its sharpest philosophical leverage in the fine structure of conversational inference. Grice: “At Oxford, nobody really cared when I gave my lecture on ‘meaning’ at the Oxford philosophical society, that Longan had been defended my naturalism of signification for years then! L.’s emphasis on ‘natura’ and ‘naturale’ certainly were part of my inspiration for ‘natural’ meaning – although I was reserved in my uses of ‘natura’ as a noun – except when to refer to my wanton disposition as a gift of ‘saggia natura’! Any student of Grice’s philosophy should make a lot of sense of L.’s contributions. A systematic philosopher, like Grice, he bases his research on signs and signification. L. is a prominent figure of the  Enlightenment, whose work Philosophia Rationalis, often appearing in parts like De arte logica, serves as a bridge between rigid traditional rationalism and psychological and social thought.  Main Points of Philosophia Rationalis Holistic View of Man: L. challenges the rigidly rationalistic views of his era by arguing for a conception of humanity that integrates the body and soul. Revaluation of the non-rational: He emphasises human components previously neglected by philosophers, such as passions, fantasy, and the psychological dimension. Logic and Truth: In his De arte logica, a core volume of his rational philosophy, he explores the nature of ideas, signs, and the distinction between truth and error, aiming to refine the art of thinking. Freedom and Equality: By viewing man as a totality, L. extends his philosophical logic into social ethics, advocating for universal freedom and equality inspired by Enlightenment thinkers. Importance in the History of Philosophy Enlightenment Reformism: L. is a key representative of the Enlightenment. metafisica, ESAME FISICO dell’uomo esame naturale. Semiotica. Grice: Caro Longano, ti confesso che a Oxford nessuno si emozionava quando parlavo di “significato naturale”. Forse avrei dovuto portare qualche passione o fantasia in aula, come suggerisci tu! Longano: Paul, sai che la natura non si lascia mai intimidire dalle teorie? Se avessi portato una lezione sulla “saggia natura”, sicuramente anche gli studenti avrebbero applaudito, magari pensando a un picnic filosofico! Grice: Beh, Longano, il tuo uomo naturale mi ha ispirato: da quando ho rivalutato passioni e psicologia, persino la mia voglia di biscotti sembra un dono della filosofia! Longano: Ecco, Paul, la libertà e l’uguaglianza si gustano meglio con una buona dose di fantasia. Dopotutto, come diceva mio zio molisano, “la verità ha bisogno di qualche errore per essere digerita!” The earliest datable composition by Francesco Longano is an essay called "La ragione" 1766? No tesi, no articolo -- and what is the "La ragione" about? thanks Short answer: I would not yet trust that entry as it stands. I do not at present have a solid bibliographical confirmation that Francesco Longano published a work simply called La ragione in 1766, and the search results are not giving me a clean record for it. What does appear securely for Longano is the sequence around Piano d’un corpo di filosofia morale (1764) and Dell’uomo naturale (1767), with later logical and rational-philosophical works, but not an immediately well-attested standalone La ragione for 1766. [treccani.it], [it.wikipedia.org], [montesquieu.unibo.it] So the first answer is bibliographical caution: I cannot confirm, from the evidence in hand, that La ragione (1766) is the earliest datable composition by Francesco Longano. [treccani.it], [it.wikipedia.org] In fact, if by “datable composition” one means a published work with secure year and title, then Piano d’un corpo di filosofia morale of 1764 looks earlier and much more secure. [treccani.it], [it.wikipedia.org] That means your current pseudo-entry Longano, Francesco (1766). La ragione. Napoli: Stamperia Simoniana. is possible, but not yet established. Now, on the second part, “what is La ragione about?” Since the title itself is not securely located here, one cannot responsibly describe its content as though it were a verified text. The nearest safe inference would be only thematic: if there was such a piece, it would likely belong to the Longano who is already moving between Genovesian moral philosophy, anthropology, logic, and the natural man; that is, reason understood not as pure abstract intellect alone, but in relation to the whole human being, passions, social life, and reform. That larger profile is well supported. [montesquieu.unibo.it], [treccani.it] So the dry answer is: No, I would not presently call La ragione (1766) the earliest datable composition by Francesco Longano. The earliest securely attested published work I can support from the results here is Piano d’un corpo di filosofia morale (1764).  And because I cannot securely verify La ragione as a real 1766 publication from these sources, I should not pretend to know what that specific work was about. [treccani.it], [it.wikipedia.org] If you want the safest scholarly line in your style, I would say: The entry La ragione (Napoli, Stamperia Simoniana, 1766) should be treated with caution until confirmed by catalogue evidence. The securely visible early Longano is the author of Piano d’un corpo di filosofia morale (1764), followed by Dell’uomo naturale (1767). If a 1766 La ragione existed, it would belong to the same reforming and anthropological phase; but at present the title is less secure than the profile of the author who would have written it. [treccani.it], [it.wikipedia.org], [montesquieu.unibo.it] If you like, I can do one of two things next, still only in chat: I can help reconstruct what a hypothetical Longano text called La ragione would most likely have covered, based on his authenticated works. I can also help normalize the bibliography around Longano so that only securely attested titles remain in the entry.Longano, Francesco (1766). La ragione. Napoli: Stamperia Simoniana.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Losano: la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale della filosofia del diritto romano Mario Giuseppe Losano (Casale Monferrato, Alessandria, Piemonte): la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale della filosofia del diritto romano. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning explains implicature as an inferential achievement for which speakers are answerable: what is meant beyond what is said is recoverable by a hearer who assumes cooperative rationality and can justify the inference by appeal to shared conversational norms. Losano’s work, by contrast, comes out of jurisprudence and legal philosophy (and, very early, out of constitutional-law interests before his later prominence in Kelsen studies and legal informatics), so “conversational reason” is naturally reframed as institutional reason: the way norms, authorities, and interpretive communities make texts mean something in practice, under constraints of precedent, procedure, and professional responsibility. In that register, what Grice calls implicature looks less like a purely local feature of a two-person exchange and more like a generalized interpretive phenomenon: legal language routinely relies on what is not said (presuppositions about competence, jurisdiction, burden of proof, or the intended scope of a rule), and it is precisely these background assumptions that legal reasoning must make explicit, contest, or stabilize. The comparison, then, is between Grice’s micro-model of accountability in conversation (how a remark licenses a specific, criticizable inference in a given context) and Losano’s macro-model of accountability in normative systems (how authoritative texts and institutions license interpretations that can be argued for, appealed, or rejected). Grice’s cooperative principle becomes, in legal key, something like a principle of interpretive charity under institutional constraints, while Losano’s emphasis on systems, sources, and the circulation of legal ideas highlights that the “shared background” required for implicature is not merely interpersonal but can be built and maintained by juristic education, legal tradition (including Roman law’s long afterlife), and the formal settings in which interpretation is demanded and disciplined. Grice: “While I refer to Ryle and Austin as avid students of Greek philosophy – Ancient Greek philosophy, that is – especially Austin, since, like me, and unlike Ryle, he had to suffer it to get his double first in greats! – they never wondered why lawyers in England all are about the English customary law and Roman law – No English lawyer would have ONE thing to say about Greek law – the reason being that at Oxford, the Faculty of Law, had a chair for Roman law, but none for Greek law! The Regius chiar of civil law at Oxford, also known as the Oxford chair of Roman law, has a rich and lengthy history, starting with its establishment by Henry VIII. Henry establishes the Regius Professor of Civil Law at Oxford, and Story is appointed as the fist professor. The chair continues to be held by a series of professors who primarily lecture ON ROMAN LAW and related subjects like the pandects, the code, or the ecclesiastical laws of England, as sipulated in statutes. Then came a period of dcline in the study of ROMAN law at Oxford,. According to PHILLIMORE, who holds the chair, the subject was not taught for almost a century preceding his tenure. The Oxford University Act replaces the CIVIL LAW used in the chancellor’s court with the common law of England and the statue law of the realm. This court, which previously held jurisdiction in private law matters involving scholars and others connected to the university, had operated according to civil law. ROMAN LAW is RE-INTRODUCED as part of the law degree, the B. A. in JURISPRUDENCE, upon its establishment. The chair is held by notable figures such as BRYCE, and GROUDY. ZULUETA holds the chair contributing to the feld of ROMAN LAW. JOLOWICZ holds the chair, filosofia del DIRITTO ROMANO, LIVIO, storia del DIRITTO ROMANO, what Kelsen never had. Grice: Caro Losano, ti confesso che a Oxford il diritto greco era più raro di una pizza senza pomodoro! Tutti a parlare di diritto romano, e nessuno che si chieda cosa pensassero gli ateniesi sulle multe del condominio. Losano: Ah, Paul, è vero! Il Regius Chair di Oxford sembra quasi un tempio dedicato a Livio e alle Pandette. Magari un giorno anche il diritto greco avrà la sua vendetta, ma per ora dobbiamo accontentarci del latino, che almeno fa sembrare tutto più autorevole—anche quando non capiamo niente! Grice: Lo ammetto, Mario, il diritto romano è come il vino buono, si tramanda da Re Enrico VIII fino a oggi. Ma ti dirò: tra una lezione di pandette e una di codici, ho sempre pensato che una chiacchierata sui casi delle pecore rubate sarebbe stata più divertente! Losano: Paul, hai ragione! In fondo, la filosofia del diritto romano è una grande conversazione, dove ognuno dice la sua, anche se poi si finisce sempre a discutere di quante uova ci vogliono per una buona torta. E come diceva mio nonno piemontese: “Meglio una sentenza in dialetto che una legge in latino!” Losano, Mario Giuseppe (1961). Contributo. Filosofia giuridica.

 

Speranza, J. L. (n. d.). ‘Grice e Losurdo:  la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale del ribelle aristocratico.  Domenico Losurdo (Sannicandro di Bari, Puglia):  la ragione conversazionale e l’implicatura conversazionale del ribelle aristocratico. Grice’s theory of reason-governed conversational meaning treats implicature as a rationally accountable route from what is said to what is meant, grounded in cooperative expectations that make implied content criticizable rather than merely suggestive; even when talk becomes polemical, Grice’s point is that hearers infer extra content by recognizable patterns of relevance, informativeness, and intention-recognition. Losurdo’s work, by contrast, is best read as shifting the centre of gravity from the micro-norms of conversational inference to the macro-conditions of ideological and historical discourse: his portrait of Nietzsche as an “aristocratic rebel,” his attention to the “language of empire,” and his Marxist, anti-imperialist commitments treat what is left unsaid as often structurally produced—by class position, institutional power, censorship, and the rhetorical needs of domination—so that “implicature” becomes less a cooperative by-product of rational exchange and more a diagnostic clue to concealed interests and asymmetries in public language. The comparison therefore highlights two different senses of “reason” in discourse: for Grice, reason governs interpretation within conversation by supplying norms that allow interlocutors to reconstruct intended meaning; for Losurdo, reason is inseparable from critique, because what discourse “means” in political modernity frequently depends on who gets to set the conversational agenda and which silences are enforced or rewarded. Where Grice would model rebellion in talk as marked departures from cooperative expectations (and thus as inferentially trackable), Losurdo treats rebellion and hypocrisy as endemic to modern ideological vocabularies, so that the task is not only to calculate what is implicated but to explain why certain implicatures become socially natural—why they pass as “common sense” within an imperial or class-structured language game. Grice: “It must be remembered that philosophers of my generation at Oxford encountered philosophy through the classics, and while contemporary philosophers were totally absent in our curriculum, so were some OLDER philoosphers, such as Nietzsche, which is paradoxical, seeing that he loved the classics so much. The reason I adjudicate to Bradley, who possibly thought that Hegel spoke a better German!” Sannicandro di Bari, Puglia. Grice: “L. has contributed to a collection on ‘fatti normativi’ which is fascinating! I like L.: describing Nietzsche as the aristocratic rebel is genial; he also engages in some linguistic botanising with his ‘linguaggio dell’impero’: something Romans and Brits know well – cf. ‘Great Britaiin’ and my little England!” Italian philosopher, expert not on Grice, but Nietzsche, “Nietzsche, ribelle aristocratico” -- essential Italian philosopher. Si laurea a Urbino sotto SALVUCCI colla SEMANTICA di Rodbertus, istituto di scienze filosofiche, insegna storia della filosofia, presidente dell'hegeliana Società Hegel-Marx pel pensiero dialettico, società di scienze di Leibniz a Berlino, un’associazione che si rifà all’accademia reale prussiana delle scienze nella tradizione di Leibniz, associazione politico-culturale Marx. Dalla militanza comunista alla condanna dell'imperialismo, fino allo studio della questione afroamericana e di quella dei nativi, L. e studioso anche partecipe della politica. Di formazione marxista, descritto sia come un marxista controcorrente sia come un marxista eterodosso e un comunista militante, la sua produzione spazia dai contributi allo studio della filosofia critica, la auto-censura di Kant e il suo nicodemismo politico, alla ri-valutazione dell'idealismo nel tentativo di ri-proporne l'eredità, sulla scia di Lukács, alla ri-affermazione dell'interpretazione del marxismo, GRAMSCI e SPAVENTA, Il ribelle aristocratico, Nietzsche. Grice: Caro Losurdo, mi ha sempre incuriosito il tuo modo di definire Nietzsche come “ribelle aristocratico”. Personalmente, a Oxford, l’abbiamo quasi ignorato nei miei anni di studi, eppure trovo affascinante il suo rapporto con i classici. Secondo te, cosa rende Nietzsche così attuale oggi, persino nelle conversazioni filosofiche più quotidiane?  Losurdo: Grazie, Grice! Penso che Nietzsche resti attuale perché riesce a smascherare le ipocrisie della modernità e invita ciascuno di noi a non accontentarsi delle verità imposte. Il suo spirito “aristocratico” non è solo eredità, ma anche sfida a superare i limiti imposti dalla tradizione, proprio come la migliore conversazione sa rompere gli schemi.  Grice: Interessante! Nelle mie implicature conversazionali, insisto spesso sulla cooperazione e la ricerca condivisa del senso. Forse Nietzsche, con il suo linguaggio tagliente e provocatorio, ci ricorda che anche la conversazione può essere un terreno di ribellione e critica, non trovi?  Losurdo: Assolutamente, Paul. La conversazione è un luogo vivo dove si esercita il pensiero critico. E come tu insegni, non si tratta solo di ciò che si dice, ma di ciò che si lascia intendere: anche il silenzio può essere una forma di rivoluzione, come ci insegna Nietzsche e come si ritrova nella storia del pensiero dialettico.  Grice: Caro Losurdo, mi colpisce sempre il modo in cui hai saputo definire Nietzsche come “ribelle aristocratico”. All’epoca a Oxford, lo lasciavamo quasi ai margini, come fosse una sorta di zio stravagante alle feste di famiglia. Secondo te, Nietzsche oggi sarebbe più a suo agio in una conversazione filosofica o in una partita a scacchi con Kant? Losurdo: Paul, forse Nietzsche preferirebbe una partita a scacchi dove ogni pedone può diventare regina, ma non prima di aver lanciato una provocazione al re! La sua attualità sta proprio nel sapere ribaltare le regole del gioco, come la migliore conversazione che non teme di scompigliare i capelli, anche quelli della tradizione. Grice: Vedo che anche tu non disdegni la filosofia come sport estremo! Io insisto sulle implicature: a volte basta un silenzio ben piazzato per far tremare gli avversari. Nietzsche, con la sua lingua affilata, avrebbe fatto impazzire qualunque tavolo di discussione, soprattutto quello della mensa universitaria! Losurdo: Paul, il silenzio di Nietzsche sarebbe sicuramente più rumoroso delle nostre parole. E come dici tu, la conversazione è viva quando sa essere ribelle: anche una pausa può valere più di mille discorsi. In fondo, forse le conversazioni migliori sono proprio quelle dove si rischia di perdere la partita, ma si guadagna una massima nuova da aggiungere al taccuino! Losurdo, Domenico (1967). L’esistenizialismo. Studi Urbinati