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):||19 July 2008|
|PDF File Size:||8.32 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.30 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
According to Gibbard, when these claims are combined, they imply that if you ought to accept the sentence “Snow is white,” then you ought to reject “Nothing is white. I argue that the resulting account of synonymy is too fine-grained, since it counts clearly synonymous words in different languages as non-synonymous. It is clear that he sees such a strategy as complementary to the project of conceptual analysis that he undertakes in the book.
What is it for a supposition to be intelligible?
Claudine Verheggen – – Logique Et Analyse 54 Classical, Early, and Medieval Poetry and Poets: Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: There are good reasons for these views. This leaves the question of whether the relevant ought statements are subjective or objective in character. Aklan grants that there is such a thing as nonlinguistic representation, and that we will want to explain it in selectionist-cum-teleological terms.
But a priori equivalence seems not to be enough, for it seems that sentences can fail to be analytically equivalent even though they bear the same relationship to bodies of evidence. This contrasts sharply with semantic naturalism, which implies that meanings do have causal powers qua meanings. Gibbard’s lalan step is to say, in effect, that almost all words are theoretical terms, and therefore have meanings that can be captured by Carnap pairs.
In sum, it appears possible to explain the normativity of without supposing that it derives from meaning.
Turning to the question of synonymy of individual words, Gibbard begins by borrowing an idea from Horwichpp. A Reason for Accepting the Normativity Thesis Gibbard gives two main reasons for embracing his views about meaning. It is controversial whether prototypes and collections of exemplars are constitutively related to meanings, but they seem to have as good a claim to semantic relevance as many theories. According to Gibbard, the claim implies that you ought to accept the sentence just in case you are currently attending to an object that you are experiencing as blue.
We know that more or less innate representational schemes can contain concepts that are reasonably high level, such as the concept of object and restricted versions of the concepts of causation, agency, and number.
The Normative Meaning Role 7. Further, to judge that a sentence in someone else’s idiolect means that p is to plan to use it in the given way if one should be in that other person’s shoes.
No keywords gibbardd fix it. Consider the following entailment: Whether an argument involving such a premise works will depend on whether the proposition expressed by the target sentence satisfies the two conditions in this suppressed premise. Normativity of Meaning and Content in Philosophy of Language categorize this paper. Gibbard gives two main reasons for embracing his views about meaning. Allan Gibbard Meaning and Normativity.
Chapters 9 and 10 deal with problems about ought-judgments and plans that arise from the forementioned views, explore the question of whether Normatibity theory of meaning and his expressivist theory of normative language fit comfortably together, and they consider how the claims of the book might be integrated with a broadly naturalistic perspective on human nature.
Meaning and Normativity
Even if Gibbard is right in thinking that this story will fail to assign fully determinate contents to expressions, that does not deprive it of interest. It derives exclusively from the second and third premises, which are both explicitly normative. The Objects gubbard Belief Appendix 2: It might, for example, be too foggy for me to be able to distinguish weasels from fishers.
Talk of meaning though, has resisted interpretation in terms of anything that is clearly natural, such as linguistic dispositions. Another asserts that it referred to proper mass. But I have some inclination to suppose that it actually abbreviates the following more complicated argument:. Such decisions will be fundamentally normative in character because they will in effect be decisions about the relative importance meaninh various facts.
History of Western Philosophy.
Timothy Williamson, Gibbard on meaning and normativity – PhilPapers
On the face of it, this problem is quite challenging. Use, Meaning and Normativity. 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. Expressivism, Non-Naturalism, and Us Appendix 1: Therefore, if Pierre is a speaker of French who has undefeated evidence that snow is white, Pierre ought to accept “La niege est blanche.
Allan Gibbard – – Philosophical Issues 5: Gibbard’s book represents the most ambitious normztivity innovative attempt to explain meaning since Paul Horwich and Robert Brandom developed their theories in the nineties.
Request removal from index.