Ratio 22 (4):464-485 (2009)
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Doing Austin Justice: The Reception of John Austin's Philosophy of Law in Nineteenth-Century England.Wilfrid E. Rumble - 2004 - Continuum.
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.John Austin - 1906 - F.B. Rothman.
To Austin or Not to Austin, That's the Disjunction.Robert Schwartz - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 120 (1-3):255-263.
Austin On Whether Every Proposition Has A Contradictory.Michael Durrant & Charles Sayward - 1967 - Analysis 27 (April):167-170.
Speech and the Social Contract.Roy Turner - 1985 - Inquiry : An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 28 (1-4):43 – 53.
How Not To Do Things With Words: J. L. Austin on Poetry.M. de Gaynesford - 2011 - British Journal of Aesthetics 51 (1):31-49.
Added to index2009-10-09
Total downloads39 ( #132,365 of 2,169,144 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #345,568 of 2,169,144 )
How can I increase my downloads?