DOCSLIB.ORG

Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics YEUNG, \y,ang -C-hun ...:' . '",~ ... ~ .. A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy In Philosophy The Chinese University of Hong Kong January 2010 Abstract of thesis entitled: Two-Dimensionalism: Semantics and Metasemantics Submitted by YEUNG, Wang Chun for the degree of Master of Philosophy at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in July 2009 This ,thesis investigates problems surrounding the lively debate about how Kripke's examples of necessary a posteriori truths and contingent a priori truths should be explained. Two-dimensionalism is a recent development that offers a non-reductive analysis of such truths. The semantic interpretation of two-dimensionalism, proposed by Jackson and Chalmers, has certain 'descriptive' elements, which can be articulated in terms of the following three claims: (a) names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by some associated properties, (b) these properties are known a priori by every competent speaker, and (c) these properties reflect the cognitive significance of sentences containing such terms. In this thesis, I argue against two arguments directed at such 'descriptive' elements, namely, The Argument from Ignorance and Error ('AlE'), and The Argument from Variability ('AV'). I thereby suggest that reference-fixing properties belong to the semantics of names and natural kind terms, and not to their metasemantics. Chapter 1 is a survey of some central notions related to the debate between descriptivism and direct reference theory, e.g. sense, reference, and rigidity. Chapter 2 outlines the two-dimensional approach and introduces the va~ieties of interpretations 11 of the two-dimensional framework. Chapter 3 critically 'evaluates AlV: names and natural kind terms are reference-fixed by properties that may not be known by speakers. I argue that, contrary to what AlE claims, these expressions are reference-fixed by metalinguistic properties that are implicitly known by speakers. I go further to show that a special kind of arguments known as the methods of cases-including AlE-can be blocked by the a priori argument. Chapter 4 examines the force of AV: reference-fixing properties do not play significant roles in understanding and communication, as different speakers may associate different reference-fixing properties with the same expression. I show that AV fails because it is insensitive to the influence of context on the content competent speakers must know when they learn a language and the content communicated among them. HI 摘要 怎樣解釋克里普克 (s . Kripke) 所提出的後驗必然真理 (nece ssary a posteriOli truth s) 以 及先驗偶然真理 (contingent a priori truths) 一直眾說紛耘。其中，二維語意論提出的 r 不可化約的解釋 J (non-reductlve analysis) 被某些人認為最有希望解決這個難 題 。 傑克遜(F. Jackson) 及查路瑪斯 (D. Chalmers) 對此理論提出的語意論的理解 (semantic interpretation) ， 有相當描述理論 (descripti vism) 的元素 (a) 所有名稱及自 然類項 (natural kind terms) 的指謂 (referents) 是由 一些屬性決定、 (b) 講者能先驗地知 道這些屬性 、 (c) 這些屬性代表句子的認知意義 (cognitive significancε) 。本論文駁 斥兩個對有關這些描述理論元素的批評，分別是「無知及錯誤的批評 J (Argument from Ignorance and Error, ‘AIV' ) 及「可變性的批評 J (Argument from Variability, ‘AV' )。 筆者嘗試從中論証指謂屬性的ference - fixing properties) 是名稱及自然類 項的意義 ( semantic s) ，而不是它們的「 後設意義 J (metasemantics) 。 第一章 旨在解釋一些有關描述理論及直接指涉理論 (direct reference theory) 之間的 爭議的重要概念 ，例如 意義 (sense ) 、指稱 (reference) 及嚴僅指涉 (rigidity) 等。第 二 章介紹二維語意論及各種對二維語意論的理解 。 第三章主要探討 AIV 0 AIV 指出 名稱及自然類項的指謂是被一些講者所不知的屬性決定。我不同意這個立場 ， 因 為我們有理由相信名稱及自然類項的指謂是由一些講者約略 (implicitly) 知道的 「後設語言的屬性 J (metalinguistic properties) 決定。 此外，此章証明一類句括 AIV 在內的「情況方法 J (methods of cases) 的論証均被「先驗論証 J (a priori argument) 駁倒 。第 四章考察 AV o AV 稱由於不同的講者有可能給予 同一個名稱或自然類 項不同的指謂屬性，故這些屬性既不是每個講者均要知道，也不會是人們溝通時 傳達的內容 ( communicated content ) 。 我在此章，駁斥 AV' 因為 AV 忽略了情境 (context) 對講者所要知道的指涉屬性以及他們溝通時傳遞的內容的影響 。 lV Acknowledgements! 1 The following is the totality of my thanks to people who have contributed either directly or indirectly to this study. 2 I owe more thanks than I can say to my primary supervisor, Professor Kai-Yee Wong. 2.1 In the course of my writing this thesis, Professor Wong was never hesitant about reminding me, from time to time, how inadequate of my thesis-in-progress was, both in terms of its content and writing. During several occasions when I had long dry spells, he always took the trouble to help me bound back. 2.2 It goes without saying how much I owe intellectual debts to him. 2.3 Most importantly: contrary to countless people I have encountered, he sets an example of how one should live, instead of how one should NOT live. 3 I would also like to thank my secondary supervisor, Professor Chris Fraser, for his valuable comments on my early ideas of this thesis. 4 I am also grateful to Professor Chong-Fok Lau, Professor Hon-Lam Li, Professor Xiaogan Liu, and Professor Kwong-Loi Shun. 5 Thanks are also due to fellow students Thomas Cham, Pengbo Liu, Issac Lowe, Brian Wong, and in particular, Hong-Ting Li and Calista Lam, for all the 1 It should be transparent to readers that this acknowledgement mimics the.structure of the book Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus written by Wittgenstein. v enjoyable discussions over the last two years. 5.1 It is a pleasure to discuss ideas with Hong-Ting Li, who is always ready for a lengthy discussion about direct reference, possible-world semantics, and the like, regardless of his Continental Philosophy background. 5.2 Calista Lam has given many constructive comments on the early drafts that led to improvements. 6 This thesis is dedicated, if it is worth being dedicated, to my parents, sister, and brother, without whom I might not have learnt the meaning of unconditional devotion. 7 When one is not truly talented, his thesis can, at best, offer nothing but some modest contribution. VI Table of Contents Declarations Acknowledgements Table of Contents Introduction 1 PART I FROM MIXED TRUTHS TO TWO-DIMENSIONALISM Chapter One: Rigidity, Descriptivism, and Direct Reference 1. 1. Meaning and Reference 7 1. 2. Rigidity and the Dusk of Descriptivism 13 1. 3. Different Theories of Reference 22 1. 4. Apriority and Necessity 32 Chapter Two: Two-Dimensionalism 2. 1. Possible-World Semantics 38 2.2. Two-Dimensional Semantics 43 2.3. Variety of Two-Dimensionalism 48 PART 11 TWO-DIMENSIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS Chapter Three: The Argument from Ignorance and Error 3. 1. A-Intension and Associated Properties 59 3. 2. The Argument from Ignorance and Error 65 3. 3. The a Priori Argument 73 Chapter Four: The Argument from Variabil ity 4.1. Associated Properties and Meanings 88 4.2. A-Intension and Understanding 90 4.3. A-Intension and Communication 97 CONCLUDING REMARKS 109 BIBLOGRAPHY 112 vu Introduction: Names and Reference-fixing Properties 'Hesperus' and 'Phosphorus' are the names for the same celestial body, namely Venus. The description 'being the evening star' is known as the reference-fixing description for 'Hesperus'. This thesis can be considered as part of the project studying the relation between names (also natural kind terms) and reference-fixing properties described by the associated descriptions. What is the meaning of names? Descriptivism, a theory of naming ins'pired by Russell and Frege, holds that the meaning of names is their associated descriptions that specify the individuating properties of the bearers. Accordingly, names and associated reference-fixing properties cannot be more strongly linked. Descriptivism is widely believed to be demolished nearly single-handedly by Kripke, who has famously argued that since names are rigid designators while descriptions are not, they are not synonyms. As Kripke has also argued, in general names are not reference-fixed by the descriptions known by speakers. Direct referent theory, Kripke and Putnam being its most well-known advocates, holds that the meaning of names is exhausted by their referents. Some may think that this theory entails that names and reference-fixing properties are totally unrelated. This is a rash conclusion. Even though Kripke rejects the idea that descriptions give the semantic values of names, he would agree that reference-fixing properties, be it the descriptions about the relevant causal chain or the descriptions said by the Baptists, belong to the metasemantics of names. The distinction between semantics and metasemantics is suggested by David Kaplan. Semantics says what semantic values of expressions are in a given language; metasemantics is an account of what the facts are in virtue of which expressions have the semantic values they have. 1 As I understood, Kripke's discussion about 'epistemic might' hints that, contrary to the general perception of him, he thinks names and associated properties are more interconnected tha~ the picture presented by direct reference theorists. Talking about the possibility that Hesperus might not have been Phosphorus, Kripke stresses that the 'might' is purely 'epistemic'. Although it is necessary that Hesperus is Phosphorus, we can still ask sensibly whether Hesperus is Phosphorus. It is because in that case, we are only considering the 'epistemic duplicates' of Hesperus and Phosphorus, which concern about the way we conceive the objects in some qualitative epistemic situation, where things only appear qualitatively to us. As it is possible that the evening star is not identical to the morning star, it is possible, in the epistemic sense, that Hesperus is not Phosphorus. This is a supportive argument for the claim that it is a posteriori that Hesperus is Phosphorus. Some philosophers, notably lackson and Chalmers, have proposed a two-dimensional
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Semantics and Pragmatics
    Semantics and Pragmatics Christopher Gauker Semantics deals with the literal meaning of sentences. Pragmatics deals with what speakers mean by their utterances of sentences over and above what those sentences literally mean. However, it is not always clear where to draw the line. Natural languages contain many expressions that may be thought of both as contributing to literal meaning and as devices by which speakers signal what they mean. After characterizing the aims of semantics and pragmatics, this chapter will set out the issues concerning such devices and will propose a way of dividing the labor between semantics and pragmatics. Disagreements about the purview of semantics and pragmatics often concern expressions of which we may say that their interpretation somehow depends on the context in which they are used. Thus: • The interpretation of a sentence containing a demonstrative, as in “This is nice”, depends on a contextually-determined reference of the demonstrative. • The interpretation of a quantified sentence, such as “Everyone is present”, depends on a contextually-determined domain of discourse. • The interpretation of a sentence containing a gradable adjective, as in “Dumbo is small”, depends on a contextually-determined standard (Kennedy 2007). • The interpretation of a sentence containing an incomplete predicate, as in “Tipper is ready”, may depend on a contextually-determined completion. Semantics and Pragmatics 8/4/10 Page 2 • The interpretation of a sentence containing a discourse particle such as “too”, as in “Dennis is having dinner in London tonight too”, may depend on a contextually determined set of background propositions (Gauker 2008a). • The interpretation of a sentence employing metonymy, such as “The ham sandwich wants his check”, depends on a contextually-determined relation of reference-shifting.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference and Sense
    REFERENCE AND SENSE y two distinct ways of talking about the meaning of words y tlkitalking of SENSE=deali ng with relationshippggs inside language y talking of REFERENCE=dealing with reltilations hips bbtetween l. and the world y by means of reference a speaker indicates which things (including persons) are being talked about ege.g. My son is in the beech tree. II identifies persons identifies things y REFERENCE-relationship between the Enggplish expression ‘this p pgage’ and the thing you can hold between your finger and thumb (part of the world) y your left ear is the REFERENT of the phrase ‘your left ear’ while REFERENCE is the relationship between parts of a l. and things outside the l. y The same expression can be used to refer to different things- there are as many potential referents for the phrase ‘your left ear’ as there are pppeople in the world with left ears Many expressions can have VARIABLE REFERENCE y There are cases of expressions which in normal everyday conversation never refer to different things, i.e. which in most everyday situations that one can envisage have CONSTANT REFERENCE. y However, there is very little constancy of reference in l. Almost all of the fixing of reference comes from the context in which expressions are used. y Two different expressions can have the same referent class ica l example: ‘the MiMorning St’Star’ and ‘the Evening Star’ to refer to the planet Venus y SENSE of an expression is its place in a system of semantic relati onshi ps wit h other expressions in the l.
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatics Is a Systematic Way of Explaining Language Use in Context
    Pragmatics is a systematic way of explaining language use in context. It seeks to explain aspects of meaning which cannot be found in the plain sense of words or structures, as explained by semantics. As a field of language study, pragmatics is fairly new. Its origins lie in philosophy of language and the American philosophical school of pragmatism. As a discipline within language science, its roots lie in the work of (Herbert) Paul Grice on conversational implicature and the cooperative principle, and on the work of Stephen Levinson, Penelope Brown and Geoff Leech on politeness. We can illustrate how pragmatics works by an example from association football (and other field sports). It sometimes happens that a team-mate will shout at me: “Man on!” Semantic analysis can only go so far with this phrase. For example, it can elicit different lexical meanings of the noun “man” (mankind or the human race, an individual person, a male person specifically) and the preposition “on” (on top of, above, or other relationships as in “on fire”, “on heat”, “on duty”, “on the fiddle” or “on the telly”). And it can also explain structural meaning, and account for the way this phrase works in longer sequences such as the “first man on the moon”, “a man on the run” or “the man on top of the Clapham omnibus”. We use language all the time to make things happen. We ask someone to pass the salt or marry us - not, usually at the same time. We order a pizza or make a dental appointment. Speech acts include asking for a glass of beer, promising to drink the beer, threatening to drink more beer, ordering someone else to drink some beer, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Language
    01:615:201 Introduction to Linguistic Theory Adam Szczegielniak The Meaning of Language Copyright in part: Cengage learning The Meaning of Language • When you know a language you know: • When a word is meaningful or meaningless, when a word has two meanings, when two words have the same meaning, and what words refer to (in the real world or imagination) • When a sentence is meaningful or meaningless, when a sentence has two meanings, when two sentences have the same meaning, and whether a sentence is true or false (the truth conditions of the sentence) • Semantics is the study of the meaning of morphemes, words, phrases, and sentences – Lexical semantics: the meaning of words and the relationships among words – Phrasal or sentential semantics: the meaning of syntactic units larger than one word Truth • Compositional semantics: formulating semantic rules that build the meaning of a sentence based on the meaning of the words and how they combine – Also known as truth-conditional semantics because the speaker’ s knowledge of truth conditions is central Truth • If you know the meaning of a sentence, you can determine under what conditions it is true or false – You don’ t need to know whether or not a sentence is true or false to understand it, so knowing the meaning of a sentence means knowing under what circumstances it would be true or false • Most sentences are true or false depending on the situation – But some sentences are always true (tautologies) – And some are always false (contradictions) Entailment and Related Notions • Entailment: one sentence entails another if whenever the first sentence is true the second one must be true also Jack swims beautifully.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pragmatics-Based Approach to Understanding
    A PRAGMATIC~BASED APPROACH TO UNDERSTANDING INTERS~NTENTIAL ~LIPSI~ Sandra Car berry Department of Computer and Information Science University of Delaware Nevark, Delaware 19715, U3A ABSTRACT S~A~R-I : "The Korean Jet shot down by the Soviets was a spy plane." IntersententAal eAlipti caA utterances occur frequently in information-seeking dielogues. This FI: "With 269 people on board?"~ paper presents a pragmatics-based framework for F2: "With infrared cameras on board?" interpreting such utterances, ~ncluding identAfi- cation of the spoa~r' s discourse ~oel in employ- Previous research on ellipsis has neglected to ing the fra~ent. We claim that the advantage of address the speaker's discourse Eoals in employing this approach is its reliance upon pragmatic the frasment but reel understanding requires that information, including discourse content and these be identified (Mann, Moore, and Levin, 1977) conversational goals, rather than upon precise (Webber, PoZlack, and Hirschberg, 1982). representations of the preceding utterance alone. In this paper, we investlgate a framework for interpreting Intersententlal ellipsis that occurs INTRODOCTION in task-orlented dialogues. This framework includes: The fraRmentary utterances that are common in communication between humans also occur in man- [1] a context mechanism (Carberry, 1983) that Nachi~e OOmmUlLCcation. Humans perslat in using builds the information-seeker, s underlying abbreviated statements and queries, even in the plan as the dialogue progresses and differen- presence o/ explicit and repeated instructions to tiates be~een local and global contexts. adhere to syntactically and semantically complete sentences (Carbonell, 1983) • Thus a robust [2] a discourse component that controls the natural langua@e interface must handle ellipsis.
    [Show full text]
  • Denotational Semantics
    Denotational Semantics CS 6520, Spring 2006 1 Denotations So far in class, we have studied operational semantics in depth. In operational semantics, we define a language by describing the way that it behaves. In a sense, no attempt is made to attach a “meaning” to terms, outside the way that they are evaluated. For example, the symbol ’elephant doesn’t mean anything in particular within the language; it’s up to a programmer to mentally associate meaning to the symbol while defining a program useful for zookeeppers. Similarly, the definition of a sort function has no inherent meaning in the operational view outside of a particular program. Nevertheless, the programmer knows that sort manipulates lists in a useful way: it makes animals in a list easier for a zookeeper to find. In denotational semantics, we define a language by assigning a mathematical meaning to functions; i.e., we say that each expression denotes a particular mathematical object. We might say, for example, that a sort implementation denotes the mathematical sort function, which has certain properties independent of the programming language used to implement it. In other words, operational semantics defines evaluation by sourceExpression1 −→ sourceExpression2 whereas denotational semantics defines evaluation by means means sourceExpression1 → mathematicalEntity1 = mathematicalEntity2 ← sourceExpression2 One advantage of the denotational approach is that we can exploit existing theories by mapping source expressions to mathematical objects in the theory. The denotation of expressions in a language is typically defined using a structurally-recursive definition over expressions. By convention, if e is a source expression, then [[e]] means “the denotation of e”, or “the mathematical object represented by e”.
    [Show full text]
  • Gottlob Frege: on Sense and Reference Professor Jeeloo Liu [Introduction]
    Phil/Ling 375: Meaning and Mind [Handout #13] Gottlob Frege: On Sense and Reference Professor JeeLoo Liu [Introduction] I. Language and the World ___ How does language depict reality? Does reality have the same structure as the structure of language? For instance, the basic linguistic structure is a subject and a predicate, and the basic structure of the world is a particular and a universal (e.g. “Socrates is wise”). The subject usually is something of the world and we describe some property it has or does not have. A is F is true is A is really F, is false when A is not F. II. Different Elements of Language Singular terms: Terms that designate particular things Proper names Indexicals: now, today, here, I… Demonstratives: that, this… Pronouns (singular): he, she,… Definite descriptions (the so-and-so): Indefinite (singular) descriptions (a so-and-so) General terms: Terms that designate a kind of things or a certain property Mass nouns ___ natural kind terms (‘water,’ ‘tiger,’ ‘lemon’) ___ non-natural kind terms (‘bachelor’, ‘contract,’ ‘chair’) Adjectives (predicates): colors, shapes, etc. III. Traditional Theories of Meaning Prior to Frege [A] The Ideational Theory ___ The meaning of a linguistic expression is the speaker’s idea that is associated with the expression. [B] Mill’s Theory [the Object Theory] ___ The meaning of a singular term is the thing designated by that term; ___ the meaning of a name is just what the name stands for; the name does not have any other meaning e.g. ‘Socrates’ means Socrates e.g. ‘Dartmouth’ e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics
    Scope Ambiguity in Syntax and Semantics Ling324 Reading: Meaning and Grammar, pg. 142-157 Is Scope Ambiguity Semantically Real? (1) Everyone loves someone. a. Wide scope reading of universal quantifier: ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] b. Wide scope reading of existential quantifier: ∃y[person(y) ∧∀x[person(x) → love(x,y)]] 1 Could one semantic representation handle both the readings? • ∃y∀x reading entails ∀x∃y reading. ∀x∃y describes a more general situation where everyone has someone who s/he loves, and ∃y∀x describes a more specific situation where everyone loves the same person. • Then, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is associated with the semantic representation that describes the more general reading, and the more specific reading obtains under an appropriate context? That is, couldn’t we say that Everyone loves someone is not semantically ambiguous, and its only semantic representation is the following? ∀x[person(x) →∃y[person(y) ∧ love(x,y)]] • After all, this semantic representation reflects the syntax: In syntax, everyone c-commands someone. In semantics, everyone scopes over someone. 2 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity • The semantic representation with the scope of quantifiers reflecting the order in which quantifiers occur in a sentence does not always represent the most general reading. (2) a. There was a name tag near every plate. b. A guard is standing in front of every gate. c. A student guide took every visitor to two museums. • Could we stipulate that when interpreting a sentence, no matter which order the quantifiers occur, always assign wide scope to every and narrow scope to some, two, etc.? 3 Arguments for Real Scope Ambiguity (cont.) • But in a negative sentence, ¬∀x∃y reading entails ¬∃y∀x reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Denotation and Connotation in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: Discourse Analysis of the 2016 Presidential Debates
    UNIVERSIDAD PONTIFICIA COMILLAS Facultad de Ciencias Humanas y Sociales Degree in Translation and Interpreting Final Degree Project Denotation and Connotation in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump: Discourse analysis of the 2016 presidential debates Student: Markel Lezana Escribano Director: Dr Susan Jeffrey Campbell Madrid, 8th June 2017 Index List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….i 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3 2. Theoretical Framework............................................................................................. 5 2.1 Semantics ................................................................................................................ 5 2.2 Discourse Analysis ................................................................................................. 9 2.2.1 Functional Discourse Analysis ........................................................................ 9 2.2.2 Critical Discourse Analysis ........................................................................... 10 2.2.3 Political Discourse Analysis .......................................................................... 10 2.3 Pragmatics ............................................................................................................ 10 2.4 Tools of Analysis .................................................................................................. 11 2.4.1 Functions of Language .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • On the Logic of Two-Dimensional Semantics
    Matrices and Modalities: On the Logic of Two-Dimensional Semantics MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Peter Fritz (born March 4, 1984 in Ludwigsburg, Germany) under the supervision of Dr Paul Dekker and Prof Dr Yde Venema, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: June 29, 2011 Dr Paul Dekker Dr Emar Maier Dr Alessandra Palmigiano Prof Dr Frank Veltman Prof Dr Yde Venema Abstract Two-dimensional semantics is a theory in the philosophy of language that pro- vides an account of meaning which is sensitive to the distinction between ne- cessity and apriority. Usually, this theory is presented in an informal manner. In this thesis, I take first steps in formalizing it, and use the formalization to present some considerations in favor of two-dimensional semantics. To do so, I define a semantics for a propositional modal logic with operators for the modalities of necessity, actuality, and apriority that captures the relevant ideas of two-dimensional semantics. I use this to show that some criticisms of two- dimensional semantics that claim that the theory is incoherent are not justified. I also axiomatize the logic, and compare it to the most important proposals in the literature that define similar logics. To indicate that two-dimensional semantics is a plausible semantic theory, I give an argument that shows that all theorems of the logic can be philosophically justified independently of two-dimensional semantics. Acknowledgements I thank my supervisors Paul Dekker and Yde Venema for their help and encour- agement in preparing this thesis.
    [Show full text]
  • The End of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico
    Living in Silence: the End of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus and Lecture on Ethics Johanna Schakenraad Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus logico-philosophicus starts as a book on logic and (the limits of) language. In the first years after publication (in 1921) it was primarily read as a work aiming to put an end to nonsensical language and all kinds of metaphysical speculation. For this reason it had a great influence on the logical positivists of the Vienna Circle. But for Wittgenstein himself it had another and more important purpose. In 1919 he had sent his manuscript to Ludwig von Ficker, the publisher of the literary journal der Brenner, hoping that Ficker would consider publishing the Tractatus. In the accompanying letter he explains how he wishes his book to be understood. He thinks it is necessary to give an explanation of his book because the content might seem strange to Ficker, but, he writes: In reality, it isn’t strange to you, for the point of the book is ethical. I once wanted to give a few words in the foreword which now actually are not in it, which, however, I’ll write to you now because they might be a key to you: I wanted to write that my work consists of two parts: of the one which is here, and of everything which I have not written. And precisely this second part is the important one. For the Ethical is delimited from within, as it were, by my book; and I’m convinced that, strictly speaking, it can ONLY be delimited in this way.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Reference 1. the Phenomenon Of
    1 Reference 1. The phenomenon of reference In a paper evaluating animal communication systems, Hockett and Altmann (1968) presented a list of what they found to be the distinctive characteristics which, collectively, define what it is to be a human language. Among the characteristics is the phenomenon of "aboutness", that is, in using a human language we talk about things that are external to ourselves. This not only includes things that we find in our immediate environment, but also things that are displaced in time and space. For example, at this moment I can just as easily talk about Tahiti or the planet Pluto, neither of which are in my immediate environment nor ever have been, as I can about this telephone before me or the computer I am using at this moment. Temporal displacement is similar: it would seem I can as easily talk about Abraham Lincoln or Julius Caesar, neither a contemporary of mine, as I can of former president Bill Clinton, or my good friend John, who are contemporaries of mine. This notion of aboutness is, intuitively, lacking in some contrasting instances. For example, it is easy to think that animal communication systems lack this characteristic—that the mating call of the male cardinal may be caused by a certain biological urge, and may serve as a signal that attracts mates, but the call itself is (putatively) not about either of those things. Or, consider an example from human behavior. I hit my thumb with a hammer while attempting to drive in a nail. I say, "Ouch!" In so doing I am saying this because of the pain, and I am communicating to anyone within earshot that I am in pain, but the word ouch itself is not about the pain I feel.
    [Show full text]