How Do Grice and Strawson End Up in a Rabbit Hole?
Since Kant’s usage of analytic and synthetic to divide propositions into two categories, there have been many different philosophers who have used the same distinction over time. However, this does not necessarily mean that every philosopher who uses this distinction for their philosophical purposes actually favors it. The most important of all is unquestionably Willard Van Orman Quine. He defines the existence of the distinction as an unempirical dogma of empiricists or a metaphysical article of faith. To him such a distinction does not exist. He believes he offers enough proofs for this claim in his Two Dogmas of Empiricism. Alternatively, Grice and Strawson strongly believe in the distinction. Therefore, they write an article, namely In Defense of a Dogma, to refute Quine’s claims. The main objective in this study is to demonstrate that the response by Grice and Strawson does not work at all.
- Eshemomoh, F. (2021). The Metaphysics of Empiricism: Two Dogmas of Empiricism Reexamined. IGWEBUIKE: An African Journal of Arts and Humanities, 7(1), 29-42. https://doi.org/10. 13140 / RG.2.2.19482.59846
- Grice, H. P., & Strawson, P. F. (1956). In Defense of a Dogma. The Philosophical Review, 65(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182828
- Pigden, C. R. (1987). Two Dogmatists. Inquiry, 30(1-2), 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/00201748708602116
- Putnam, H. (1983). ‘Two dogmas’ revisited. In Philosophical Papers (pp. 87-97). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511625275.007
- Quine, W. (1991). Two Dogmas in Retrospect. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 21(3), 265-274. https://doi.org/10.1080/00455091.1991.10717246
- Saussure, F. D. (2011). Course in General Linguistics (P. Meisel, & H. Saussy, Eds.). New York: Columbia University Press.
- W. V. Quine.. (1951). Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism. The Philosophical Review, 60(1), 20–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/2181906
