Ratio 22 (4):464-485 (2009)
|Abstract||What is at stake when J. L. Austin calls poetry 'non-serious', and sidelines it in his speech act theory? (I). Standard explanations polarize sharply along party lines: poets (e.g. Geoffrey Hill) and critics (e.g. Christopher Ricks) are incensed, while philosophers (e.g. P. F. Strawson; John Searle) deny cause (II). Neither line is consistent with Austin's remarks, whose allusions to Plato, Aristotle and Frege are insufficiently noted (III). What Austin thinks is at stake is confusion, which he corrects apparently to the advantage of poets (IV). But what is actually at stake is the possibility of commitment and poetic integrity. We should reject what Austin offers (V). 1.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wilfrid E. Rumble (2004). Doing Austin Justice: The Reception of John Austin's Philosophy of Law in Nineteenth-Century England. Continuum.
John Austin (1906/1983). The Austinian Theory of Law: Being an Edition of Lectures I, V, and Vi of Austin's "Jurisprudence," and of Austin's "Essay on the Uses of the Study of Jurisprudence" with Critical Notes and Excursus. F.B. Rothman.
Robert Schwartz (2004). To Austin or Not to Austin, That's the Disjunction. Philosophical Studies 120 (1-3):255-263.
Michael Durrant & Charles Sayward (1967). Austin On Whether Every Proposition Has A Contradictory. Analysis 27 (April):167-170.
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4).
J. L. Austin (1979). Philosophical Papers. Oxford University Press.
Roy Turner (1985). Speech and the Social Contract. Inquiry 28 (1-4):43 – 53.
M. de Gaynesford (2011). How Not To Do Things With Words: J. L. Austin on Poetry. British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (1):31-49.
Added to index2009-10-09
Total downloads27 ( #45,693 of 548,972 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,511 of 548,972 )
How can I increase my downloads?