What does talk of meaning mean? All thinking consists in natural happenings in the brain. Talk of meaning though, has resisted interpretation in terms of. Meaning and Normativity. Allan Gibbard*. In the past dozen years, phrases like ” the normativity of meanin have swept into the philosophy of language. Meaning and Normativity, by AllanGibbard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , xiv + pp. ISBN ‐0‐19‐‐4 hb £
|Published (Last):||13 September 2008|
|PDF File Size:||4.7 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The nrmativity aspect of use here is accepting or rejecting the sentence in various epistemic circumstances. At the bottom of the hierarchy are terms whose meanings do not depend on Carnap sentences, and are therefore independent of the meanings of other terms, but are rather fixed by requirements to the effect that simple sentences containing them are acceptable just in case one is currently enjoying sensory experiences of certain kinds.
So far, at any rate, it hasn’t been possible for advocates of any one general theory to cite purely factual grounds for preferring their account normtaivity others. Often, the relevant facts will allow us multiple ways of forming idealized pictures of use, and will therefore permit a number of ways of assigning meaning to an expression as equally valid.
History of Western Philosophy.
That is to say, it could be that the content of the commonsense concept is factual, just as Field maintained, but that it is embedded in a folk theory that is too weak to settle certain questions about reference — and in particular, questions like the present one, which in effect asks about the relationship between a seventeenth century term and the world as represented by a modern theory. Presumably we will want to give informational or teleosemantic accounts of the contents of these concepts, just as we do for purely perceptual representations, though the contents of learned concepts will require somewhat separate treatment.
Given that the two principles are both of fundamental physical importance, it appears that there are equally good grounds for saying that Newton’s concept referred to relativistic mass and for saying that it referred to proper mass. More specifically, he doubts that an account of nonlinguistic representation will scale up so as to afford appropriately precise explanations of meanings that attach to words and sentences.
A third possible view is that it referred ambiguously to these two different physical quantities. There is a relentless intelligence, guided by wisdom, gibbadr work on every page. mewning
What is it for sentences that belong to different languages to be acceptable under the same supposition? It isn’t an ought that applies only to people who are interested in believing the truth, or only to people who want to have degrees of conviction that are in line with the weight of evidence.
What is the nature of the “ought” that Gibbard relies on in explaining the meanung thesis? Thus, since his theory of meaning invokes obligations to form beliefs in various evidential circumstances, he is committed to saying that there can be plans for forming beliefs, or, more precisely, allzn changing existing degrees of credence.
Monthly downloads Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
The core of Gibbard’s answer is that being in the shoes of another agent is a matter of being in the agent’s epistemic shoes, but this core needs qualification, and the full answer has other parts. What is the state of mind of someone who believes this claim of synonymy? Subscriber Login Email Address.
Elaborations of the Theory The concept of meaning is closely allied with the concepts of analyticity and synonymy. This proposal invites skepticism because there are grounds for doubting that such obligations exist. To purchase, visit your preferred ebook provider. Now the second premise has no tendency to imply that meaning is normative. A choice among the four hypotheses must be made on the basis of normative considerations.
Allan Gibbard, Meaning and Normativity – PhilPapers
Adolf Rami – – Grazer Philosophische Studien 68 1: Even so, I predict that every reader will find the book marvelous, whatever his or her prior commitments. Ebook This title is available normativihy an ebook. Moreover, it is an “all things considered” ought — an ought “that is tied to how reasons to believe combine and weigh together and against each other. Gibbard thinks that there will often be more than one way of doing this, and he takes the “mass” example to illustrate this point.
There are also grounds for concern about a different aspect of his theory, the idea that the allna of non-perceptual terms are fixed by Carnap sentences. The relation of meaning to future action is normativenot descriptive. Henry Jackman – manuscript. Saul Kripke – – Philosophy of Science 51 1: No keywords specified fix it. This can’t imply that I should accept “That is a weasel” whenever I am attending to a weasel, because it is possible to attend to a weasel without being in a position to appreciate the features that mark it as one.