Stanley Cavell’s Argument of the Ordinary

Main Article Content

Avner Baz

Abstract

My overall aim is to show that there is a serious and compelling argument in Stanley Cavell’s work for why any philosophical theorizing that fails to recognize what Cavell refers to as “our common world of background” as a condition for the sense of anything we say or do, and to acknowledge its own dependence on that background and the vulnerability implied by that dependence, runs the risk of rendering itself, thereby, ultimately unintelligible. I begin with a characterization of Cavell’s unique way of inheriting Austin and Wittgenstein – I call it “ordinary language philosophy existentialism” – as it relates to what Cavell calls “skepticism”. I then turn to Cavell’s response to Kripke in “The Argument of the Ordinary”, which is different from all other responses to Kripke’s Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language in that Cavell’s response, while theoretically powerful, is at the same time also existentialist, in the sense that Cavell finds a way of acknowledging in his writing the fundamental fact that his writing (thinking) constitutes an instance of what he is writing (thinking) about. This unique achievement of Cavell’s response to Kripke is not additional to his argument, but essential to it: it enables him not merely to say, but to show that, and how, Kripke’s account falsifies what it purports to elucidate, and thereby to show that the theoretical question of linguistic sense is not truly separable, not even theoretically, from the broadly ethical question of how we relate to others, and how we conduct ourselves in relation to them from one moment to the next.

Section
Invited Paper
Author Biography

Avner Baz, Tufts University

Avner Baz is Professor of Philosophy and Chair of the Philosophy Department at Tufts University. He is the author of When Words are Called For (Harvard University Press, 2012), and The Crisis of Method in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2017).

References

Azzouni, J., 2017. The Rule-Following Paradox and its Implications for Metaphysics. (New York: Springer).
Baz, A., 2014. When Words are Called For. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Baz, A., 2016. “The Sound of Bedrock: Lines of Grammar between Kant, Wittgenstein, and Cavell”. European Journal of Philosophy, 24, pp. 607–628.
Baz, A., 2017. The Crisis of Method in Contemporary Analytic Philosophy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Boghossian, P., 1989. “The Rule Following Considerations”. Mind, 98, pp. 507–549.
Cavell, S., 1969. Must We Mean What We Say? New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cavell, S., 1979. The Claim of Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cavell, S., 1990. Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Davidson, D., 2006. “A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs”. In: E. Lepore and K. Ludwig, eds., The Essential Davidson. New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 251–266.
Goldfarb, W., 1985. “Kripke on Wittgenstein on Rules”. Journal of Philosophy, 82, pp. 471–488.
Hawthorne, J., 2004. Knowledge and Lotteries. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lewis, D., 1982. “New Work for a Theory of Universals”. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 61, pp. 343–377.
McDowell, J., 1984. “Wittgenstein on Following a Rule”. Synthese, 58, pp. 325–63.
McDowell, J., 1998. Mind, Value, and Reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stevenson, C., 1944. Ethics and Language. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Wittgenstein, L., 2009. Philosophical Investigations, 4th ed., eds. and trans. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and J. Schulte. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. PI
Wittgenstein, L., 1974. Philosophical Grammar, ed. R. Rhees, trans. A. Kenny. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. PG
Wittgenstein, L., 1970. Zettel. Anscombe, eds. G. E. M. and von Wright, G. H., trans. Anscombe, G. E. M. Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Z
Merleau-Ponty, M., 1996. Phenomenology of Perception, trans. C. Smith. Routledge.
Kant, I., 1989. Critique of Pure Reason, eds. and trans. P. Guyer and A. Woods. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kant, I., 2000. Critique of the Power of Judgement, ed. P. Guyer, trans. P. Guyer and E. Matthews. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Emerson, R. W., 1844. Essays: Second Series. Boston: James Munroe and Company.
Read, R., 2012. A Wittgensteinian Way with Paradoxes. Plymouth, UK: Lexington.
Wikforss, Å., 2001. “Semantic Normativity”. Philosophical Studies, 102, pp. 203–226.
Kripke, S., 1982. Wittgenstein of Rules and Private Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wright, C., 1980. Wittgenstein on the Foundations of Mathematics. London: Duckworth.
Wright, C., 2002. “Critical Notice of McGinn’s Wittgenstein on Meaning”. In: A. Miller and C. Wright, eds., Rule-Following and Meaning. Chesham: Acumen; originally published in Mind 98 (1989), pp. 289-305.