DOCSLIB.ORG

Dissertation Deposit Draft

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dissertation Deposit Draft SPEECH ACT THEORETIC SEMANTICS by DANIEL W. HARRIS A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2014 ii © 2014 DANIEL WALLACE HARRIS All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Philosophy in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Gary Ostertag ______________ ____________________________________________________ Date Chair of Examining Committee Iakovos Vasiliou ______________ ____________________________________________________ Date Executive Officer Ernie Lepore Michael Devitt David Rosenthal Stephen Neale ____________________ Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract SPEECH ACT THEORETIC SEMANTICS by Daniel W. Harris Adviser: Professor Stephen Neale Abstract: I defend the view that linguistic meaning is a relation borne by an expression to a type of speech act, and that this relation holds in virtue of our overlapping communicative dispositions, and not in virtue of linguistic conventions. I argue that this theory gives the right account of the seman- tics–pragmatics interface and the best-available semantics for non-declarative clauses, and show that it allows for the construction of a rigorous compositional semantic theory with greater ex- planatory power than both truth-conditional and dynamic semantics. v PREFACE & ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Te ideas of Paul Grice have come up ofen during the recent boom of work on the seman- tics–pragmatics interface. In experiencing this boom, first as an undergraduate at Simon Fraser University in , then in graduate seminars at the City University of New York, New York Uni- versity, and Rutgers, as well as in summer schools at the Central European University in and the University of Riga in , I have ofen thought that if we really want to understand the se- mantics–pragmatics interface, it is not enough to be Griceans when it comes to pragmatics; we must also work out the details of a properly Gricean semantics. Part of Grice’s ambition in introducing the program of intention-based semantics, initially in his paper, ‘Meaning,’ and later in his William James Lectures (: chs.–), was to give a theory of the timeless meanings of utterance-types, and this category includes (but is not exhausted by) the meanings of linguistic expressions. Te most worked-out version of Grice’s take on linguistic meaning can be found in his paper, ‘Utterer’s Meaning, Sentence Meaning, and Word Meaning’ (: ch.). Tis paper is a difficult read, and it languished, unanthologized until the publication of Studies in the Way of Words in , in the pages of the short-lived and rela- tively obscure journal, Foundations of Language (–). I suspect that the essay’s relative obscurity partly explains the fact that Grice has had little influence on contemporary theorizing about linguistic meaning.1 Grice’s article has influenced the present work immensely. Grice 1 Of course, Grice’s theory of conversational implicature has had a massive influence on seman- tics, but this influence has been from outside, via its influence on pragmatics, by placing limits on what is generally taken to be the scope of semantic explanation. On occasion, Gricean reasoning has had a more direct influence on semantics—for example, via Schiffer’s () objections to hidden-indexical theories of propositional-attitude reports. Another example is Potts’ () use of Grice’s definition of conventional implicature in the course of bringing that notion into main- stream semantics. (Ironically, of course, although Potts attributes all four of the clauses of his definition to Grice, he argues that none of Grice’s own examples are genuine cases of conventional implicature.) vi does the following things in the paper: (a) he lays the foundations for a theory of the nature of sentence meaning and semantic underspecification that I develop and defend in Chapter Two, (b) he builds on his intentionalist theory of illocutionary force, and hints at how it can be used to give a semantics of grammatical mood that influences the theory I build in Chapter Tree;2 (c) he sketches a metasemantic theory that is the main inspiration for the theory I give in Chapter Four; and, finally, (d) he outlines a proto-speech-act-theoretic account of the composition of complex utterance-type meanings, which is one of the main influences on the account of the composition- ality that I give in Chapter Five. To be sure, the sketches, outlines, and hints in Grice’s article are incomplete and confused in various respects. I have had to extrapolate from, build on, and, in places, heavily revise Grice’s ideas in order to arrive at the theory spelled out here. And, of course, my own views have also benefitted from a wide variety of other influences, some of which I’ll mention here. But it is unlikely that I would have thought up most of the components of what fol- lows if I had not read, and re-read, Grice’s paper. Te crucial thing about the ideas in that paper, as well as the ideas in this dissertation, is that their appeal is best seen from a perspective on the nature of language, communication, and the mind–language interface that is thoroughly Gricean. Tis is a perspective that I have inherited not only from Grice, but also from a succession of Gricean mentors. I bought my copy of Studies in the Way of Words for Mike Harnish’s undergraduate seminar at Simon Fraser University in .3 In my term paper for that course, which anticipates some of Chapter Two of this dissertation, I 2 Te initial formulation of Grice’s theory of illocutionary force can be found in his essay, ‘Utterer’s Meaning and Intention’ (: ch.). It builds on some ideas in Strawson (). 3 I first read Martinich’s (/) anthologized versions of ‘Meaning’ and ‘Logic and Conver- sation’ a year earlier, in Martin Hahn’s Philosophy of Language course at SFU, which was where I became interested in the philosophy of language in the first place. Te following autumn, Martin agreed to supervise a directed reading on Frege with me, and, in return, got to read a convoluted term paper in which I attempted to solve every problem in the philosophy of language all at once. vii defended the view that the reference of a demonstrative is fixed by the speaker’s communicative intentions. Te reading list for Mike’s seminar also included Stephen Neale’s epic review of Studies, ‘Paul Grice and the Philosophy of Language’ (), which I have re-read several times since. It took a couple of years afer I came to the Graduate Center to study with Stephen before he was able to convince me of the Gricean program in all of its nuance. By the middle of , I had become convinced of the fruitfulness of the methodological framework that Stephen calls linguistic prag- matism, and I had decided to work out the implications of that framework for linguistic meaning. In the fall of , I met with Stephen nearly every week, and we took turns discussing the early bits of this dissertation as well as some articles that I was helping him to prepare for publication in a volume of collected papers. In several of those articles (, , a), Stephen outlines what he calls the blueprint theory of meaning, and in ‘Term Limits Revisited’ (), he sketches an “act-syntactic” approach to the meanings of noun phrases—both ideas that he presented in greater detail in his seminar on linguistic pragmatism in the spring of . I was convinced that these ideas pointed in the direction of the right sort of approach to semantics—one that also fit nicely with Grice’s () approach. I had also been confused about how Stephen’s more conven- tional work on semantics—such as what he says in Descriptions () and Facing Facts ()— could possibly be compatible with his radically Gricean views about the semantics–pragmatics interface. So, with Stephen’s encouragement, I decided to work out a pragmatist approach to the foundations and methodology of natural-language semantics that could incorporate both the rigor of contemporary truth-conditional and dynamic semantics and the foundational depth of Griceanism. I am filled with gratitude for Stephen’s guidance and enthusiasm, without which this dissertation would not have been possible. Others—Gricean or otherwise—who, in their roles as professors and mentors, and through their seminars, questions, comments, and encouragement, have helped to shape the views pre- viii sented here include Kent Bach, Liz Camp, Michael Devitt, Peter Hanks, Kirstie Laird, Sandra La- pointe, Ernie Lepore, Peter Ludlow, Jeff Pelletier, Craige Roberts, David Rosenthal, Stephen Schif- fer, Dan Sperber, Jason Stanley, Zoltán Szabó, and Deirdre Wilson. I would particularly like to single out Michael Devitt, Ernie Lepore, Gary Ostertag, and David Rosenthal, both for agreeing to be members of my dissertation committee and for being suppor- tive and persistent forces for good in my intellectual life while I’ve been a graduate student. I took several of Michael’s seminars early in my career at the Graduate Center, and the subtle pattern of ways in which we agree and disagree has forced me to attend to many details of my views that might otherwise have gone unarticulated. Michael has also been an invaluable model for how to stay focused on what is important, both philosophically and professionally, and I am grateful for this. Ernie’s recent and ongoing work—much of it jointly thought up with Matthew Stone and Una Stojnic—conceives of the overall goals of semantics and pragmatics in communication-centric terms that I find largely congenial, but our projects diverge on the details at nearly every choice point.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association
    September 2007 Volume 81, Issue 1 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association apa THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION Eastern Division Program University of Delaware Newark, DE 19716 www.apaonline.org The American Philosophical Association Eastern Division One Hundred Fourth Annual Meeting Marriott Waterfront Hotel Baltimore, MD December 27 - 30, 2007 Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (ISSN 0065-972X) is published five times each year and is distributed to members of the APA as a benefit of membership and to libraries, departments, and institutions for $75 per year. It is published by The American Philosophical Association, 31 Amstel Ave., University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Second-Class Postage Paid at Newark, DE and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to Proceedings and Addresses, The American Philosophical Association, University of Delaware, Newark, DE 19716. Editor: David E. Schrader Phone: (302) 831-1112 Publications Coordinator: Erin Shepherd Fax: (302) 831-8690 Associate Editor: Richard Bett Web: www.apaonline.org Meeting Coordinator: Linda Smallbrook Proceedings and Addresses of The American Philosophical Association, the major publication of The American Philosophical Association, is published five times each academic year in the months of September, November, January, February, and May. Each annual volume contains the programs for the meetings of the three Divisions; the membership list; Presidential Addresses; news of the Association, its Divisions and Committees, and announcements of interest to philosophers. Other items of interest to the community of philosophers may be included by decision of the Editor or the APA Board of Officers.
    [Show full text]
  • 9:30 - 11:00 SZB, Room 240
    PHILOSOPHY OF LANGUAGE Department of Philosophy, UT, Austin Phil 332, Spring 2013 Unique Number 42755 T/TH: 9:30 - 11:00 SZB, Room 240 INSTRUCTOR Lawrence Ray Buchanan E-mail: [email protected] Phone: (512) 471-7396 Office: Waggener Hall 4th Floor Room # 416B Office hours: Tuesdays 11:30 – 12:30 COURSE SUMMARY The course focuses on various philosophical issues concerning language. Topics to be discussed include, but are not limited to, the following: speaker-meaning, conversational implicature, sentence/expression-meaning, reference, modality, and propositional attitude ascriptions. COURSE REQUIREMENTS Assignments: • Two 6-7 page papers on topics selected from a list of prompts given by instructor. The first of these papers will be worth 20% of the student’s final grade for the course; the second will be worth 25% of the grade for the course. • One in-class midterm worth 25% of the student’s final grade. • A take-home final exam worth 25% of the grade. • Class participation and attendance (5%). Regarding the *participation* component of your grade: I expect regular attendance and participation in our course. Moreover, I expect you to have read the material for lecture carefully in advance. However, should my expectations on either front fail to be met, I reserve the right to assign (short) in-class written assignments regarding the required reading for the day that will then be counted towards the participation component of your grade. Late work: I do not accept work after the due date without a valid documented excuse. Please Note: One of the principal aims of this course is to give students experience with writing in an academic discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Herman Cappelen
    CSMN & IFIKK GEORG MORGENSTIERNES HUS HERMAN UNIVERSITY OF OSLO [email protected] CAPPELEN PRIMARY POSITIONS CHAIR PROFESSORSHIP, PHILOSOPHY 2020- University of Hong Kong PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2015-2020 University of Oslo PROFESSOR AND ARCHÉ CHAIR 2007 – 2015 University of St Andrews CUF LECTURER, FELLOW AND TUTOR IN PHILOSOPHY 2006-2007 Somerville College and University of Oxford ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 2003 – 2005 Vassar College, New York ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY 1996 – 2003 Vassar College, New York LONG-TERM AFFILIATED POSITIONS PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY (0.2 TIME) 2015-2020 University of St Andrews RESEARCH DIRECTOR, CSMN AT OSLO 2007 – 2017 University of Oslo 1 QUALIFICATIONS PhD In Philosophy. 1996 University of California, Berkeley Dissertation: “The Metaphysics of Words and the Semantics of Quotation”. Advisors: C. Chihara, S. Neale, and J. Searle BA in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics. 1989 Balliol College, Oxford MAJOR RESEARCH GRANTS • ConsciousBrainConcepts – 16 million NOK (PI: J. Storm, with collaborators from medicine, philosophy and psychology) (2019- 2022) • Toppforsk for Conceptual Engineering, 25 million NOK (with Øystein Linnebo and Camilla Serck-Hanssen and Rachel Sterken). (2016-21) • CSMN, Phase II: approximately 60 million NOK over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants). • Rethinking Mind and Meaning: £250,000 from AHRC (PI: Juan Gomez).(2014-16) • Intuitions and Philosophical Methodology: £990.000 from AHRC (PI: Jessica Brown) (2008-12) • Contextualism and Relativism: £990.000, from AHRC (PI: Crispin Wright).(2007-10) • CSMN Phase I: approximately 60 million (NOK) over 5 years from the Norwegian Research Council (with 7 other applicants).( 2007-12) • Shared Content: Awarded 4.5 million (NOK), from The Norwegian Research Council.
    [Show full text]
  • Belief in Psyontology Cumstances (Ross & Schroeder, 2014; Schwitzgebel, 2015)
    Philosophers’ volume 20, no. 11 ow are full and partial belief related in psychology’s ontology? Imprint april 2020 H Credence-first philosophers think partial belief is more funda- mental. For example, Lockeans say that to believe P is just to have high credence in P. Whereas categorical-first philosophers make full beliefs fundamental instead. Having credence x in P might just amount to having a categorical belief that P’s probability is x, for example. Work in cognitive psychology supports a different view, however. In humans, beliefs come in both coarse and fine kinds, with neither BELIEF IN more fundamental than the other. Epistemologists who focus on one kind to the exclusion of the other, or who treat one as central and the other as an afterthought, risk toiling at a fiction. This conclusion is necessarily tentative. For one thing, the empir- PSYONTOLOGY ical work is nascent and ongoing, its results subject to revision. But more than that, it’s sometimes unclear what the present results tell us about the ontological and epistemological questions of interest to philosophers. Still, a prima facie case can be made. And making it is an essential step in bringing our best science to bear on what is, at least in part, an empirical question. 1. Background Jonathan Weisberg 1.1 Why Monism? Why think one kind of belief is more fundamental than the other? It’s not just that Anglophone philosophers use ‘belief’ for both kinds, so University of Toronto they must really be the same thing deep down.1 It’s rather what causes us to use ‘belief’ for both attitudes.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy Without Intuitions, by Herman Cappelen
    546 Book Reviews Philosophy without Intuitions, by Herman Cappelen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012, 242 pp. BIBLID [0873-626X (2012) 33; pp. 546-553] Metaphilosophy is a frustrating field. Since philosophy includes such diverse areas – struggling with what we can know, should do, and can hope – and in all these areas developed radically different approaches, it seems almost impossible to provide an interesting and adequate metaphilosophical outlook. Unless one characterizes at a rather abstract level what all these different approaches in those different areas have in common (which is likely to result in something pretty uninteresting), one will end up with a metaphilosophy that will at best be adequate for a rather small pocket of philosophy. That is not only because philosophy is such a salad bowl of areas and approaches, but also because metaphilosophy is itself philosophy. In order to say something interesting about philosophy as a discipline, one will have to say something interesting about first-order philoso- phy, too; presumably about metaphysics (What is the nature of the objects of philosophical inquiry?), epistemology (How can we know about the objects of philosophical inquiry?), and philosophy of science (How do our methods reflect our epistemic access?). Given the prominent perception of at least some of analytic philosophy as being either concerned with language (‘linguistic turn’), or else the mind (‘cognitive turn’), the philosophies of those areas will probably have to be addressed too, along with meta-ethics, if one intends to include practical philosophy in one’s metaphilosophical account. This fact exponentially increases the dilemma for the metaphilosopher: either one keeps one’s first-order philosophical commitments low, and ends up with nothing very interesting to say, or one takes up a stance on all this, and ends up with a metaphilosophy that might at best be ade- quate for what oneself and one’s closest colleagues are doing when engaged in philosophy, but probably inadequate for most of what is going on in the discipline.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonsense and Illusions of Thought 4
    NONSENSE AND ILLUSIONS OF THOUGHT1 Herman Cappelen Arché/University of St Andrews and CSMN/University of Oslo Note that this is the penultimate version of the paper published in Philosophical Perspectives, 2013 This paper addresses four issues: 1. What is nonsense? 2. Is nonsense possible? 3. Is nonsense actual? 4. Why do the answers to (1)-(3) matter, if at all? These are my answers: 1. A sentence (or an utterance of one) is nonsense if it fails to have or express content (more on ‘express’, ‘have’, and ‘content’ below). This is a version of a view that can be found in Carnap (1959), Ayer (1936), and, maybe, the early Wittgenstein (1922). The notion I propose abstracts away from their favored (but wrong) theories of what meaning is. It is a notion of nonsense that can be appealed to by all semantic frameworks and all theories of what content is, but structurally it is just like e.g. Carnap’s. Nonsense, as I construe it, is accompanied by illusions of thought (and I think that was part of Carnap’s conception as well). 2. Yes. In particular, I examine three arguments for the impossibility of illusion of thought (which on my construal accompanies linguistic nonsense) and they are all unsound. 3. There might be a lot of nonsense, both in ordinary and theoretical speech. In particular, it is likely that much of contemporary philosophy consists of nonsense. Empirical work is required to determine just how much. 4. The struggle to avoid nonsense (and achieve meaningfulness) is at least as 1 Thanks to Paul Boghossian, Jessica Brown, Josh Dever, Olav Gjelsvik, John Hawthorne, Tom Hodgson, Margot Strohminger, and Åsa Wikforss for helpful discussions of the issues discussed in this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Engineering the Master Argument
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 17/12/2019, SPi 7 Conceptual Engineering The Master Argument Herman Cappelen I call the activity of assessing and developing improvements of our representational devices ‘conceptual engineering’.¹ The aim of this chapter is to present an argument for why conceptual engineering is important for all parts of philosophy (and, more gener- ally, all inquiry). Section I of the chapter provides some background and defines key terms. Section II presents the argument. Section III responds to seven objections. The replies also serve to develop the argument and clarify what conceptual engineering is. I. Background and Explanation of Central Terms If we use ‘conceptual engineering’ as I suggested above, that is, to mean the project of assessing and developing improvements of our representational devices, then if you think ‘concepts’ are the core representational devices, conceptual engineering amounts to the following: It is the project of assessing and then ameliorating our concepts.² For example: • An epistemological conceptual engineer will, in an ameliorative spirit, assess epistemic concepts. • A conceptual engineer in moral philosophy will, in an ameliorative spirit, assess moral concepts. • A metaphysical ameliorator will, in an ameliorative spirit, assess metaphysical concepts. • A semantic ameliorator will, in an ameliorative spirit, assess semantic concepts. This normative project contrasts with a descriptive one. The descriptivist aims to describe the concepts we have—to describe our epistemic, moral, metaphysical, semantic, and so on, concepts. One important strand in the history of philosophy ¹ It can also include the activity of trying to implement the proposed improvements (for more on this, see Cappelen and Plunkett’s Introduction to this volume).
    [Show full text]
  • Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes Through Gegen Die Wand and Kebab Connections
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Supervised Undergraduate Student Research Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects and Creative Work 5-2011 Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections Charli Celine Kerns [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj Part of the Other German Language and Literature Commons Recommended Citation Kerns, Charli Celine, "Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections" (2011). Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_chanhonoproj/1428 This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Supervised Undergraduate Student Research and Creative Work at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Chancellor’s Honors Program Projects by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Representation and Deconstruction of Turkish German Stereotypes through Gegen die Wand and Kebab Connections Charli Kerns Honors Thesis submitted German Section of the Department Of Modern Foreign Languages and Literatures College of Art and Sciences Introduction: When we as the audience watch a film, we step into a world overtly comprised of plot, climax, and resolution. However, in every film, cultural nuances covertly exist that repossess
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    JOHN HAWTHORNE Updated October 2018 PERSONAL DETAILS: BORN: Birmingham, England May 25, 1964 ADDRESS: USC School of Philosophy 3709 Trousdale Parkway, Los Angeles CA 90089 EMAIL: [email protected] AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS Part of three person Templeton Award (with Yoaav Isaacs and Aron Wall) for two year project on fine-tuning. Fellow of British Academy (elected 2013) Visiting Fellowship, Australian National University (for Summer 2014) Project Leader of New Insights In Religious Epistemology, a three year project at Oxford funded by the Templeton Foundation (since 2012). Visiting Lecturership, University of Helsinki, 2012. Nelson Visiting Fellow, Michigan University, 2011. Centre for Study of Mind and Language Project at University of Oslo. Project Associate since 2009. Visting Fellowship at University of Oxford 2005. Visiting Astor Lecturer, Oxford 2004. Research Fellowship at Australian National University (1993-1995) Grant from Australian Research Council for work on Grammar of Meaning book, 1991- 1993. Dissertation Prize for best Dissertation at Syracuse University (1991) First Class Honors, University of Manchester (1985) ACADEMIC POSITIONS: 1 Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, USA (part-time 2013-July 2015, full time from July 2015). Waynflete Professor of Metaphysical Philosophy, Magdalen College, Oxford, UK (2006 to July 2015) Professor of Philosophy (part-time), Princeton University (2009-2012) Professor, Rutgers University (2001-2006) Professor, Syracuse University (1996-2001) Assistant Professor, Arizona State University (1995-1996) Assistant Professor, University of New South Wales (1991-1995) EDUCATION: PhD. Syracuse University (1991) B.A. in Philosophy and Politics, University of Manchester (1985) 2 PUBLICATIONS: BOOKS Monographs Narrow Content (with Juhani Yli-Vakkuri, Oxford University Press, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, Xv + 254 Pp
    Stephen Neale, Facing Facts, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2001, xv + 254 pp. Reviewed by Jaroslav Peregrin, Department of Logic, Institute of Philosophy, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Jilská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected]. It is now often taken for granted that facts are entia non grata, for there exists a powerful argument (dubbed the slingshot), which is backed by such great names as Frege or Gödel or Davidson (and so could hardly be wrong), that discredits their existence. There indeed is such an argument, and it indeed is not wrong on the straightforward sense of wrong. However, in how far it knocks down any conception of facts is another story, a story which is anything but simple and perspicuous. In his book, Stephen Neale takes pains to excavate the origins of the argument and the presuppositions which it needs to be usable for the purpose of exorcising facts. In the introduction of the book, Neale expresses his conviction that his analysis of the slingshot will not only compromise its usability for the purpose of discrediting facts, but also save representationalist conceptions of language and mind from the attacks of the anti- representationalist philosophers like Davidson and Rorty. „Representational philosophy,“ he claims, „survives the Davidson-Rorty onslaught because non-truth-functional logics and ontologies of facts, states of affairs, situations and propositions survive not only the actual arguments deployed against them, but also the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments that can be constructed.“ However, what he does take his analyses to show is that „the most precise and powerful slingshot arguments demonstrate conclusively that the logical and ontological theories originally targeted must satisfy non-trivial conditions if they are to avoid logical or ontological collapse.“ (P.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of "Bertrand Russell De La Logique À La Politique", Special Issue of Herm
    Reviews 103 A FRENCH PERSPECTIVE ON RUSSELL ALASDAIR URQUHART Philosophy / University ofToronto Toronto, Ont., Canada M5S IAI Bertrand Russell de fa logique a fa politique. Hermes. NO.7 (1990). Paris: Edi­ tions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique. Pp. ii, 303. 8sE he new journal Hermes, which first appeared in 1988, bears the subtitle T "Cognition, Communication, Politique" and has set itself the admirable goal of introducing French readers to analytic philosophy, theories of ethics, and systems theory, in order to rescue internal French debate from the bog in which it is stuck. The publication of the present volume, containing a varied 104 Reviews Reviaus 105 collection of essays on both the technical and political writings of Russell, opens with an admirable essay by Alan Ryan; this is not a summary of his testifies to increasing French interest in Russell, an interest shown also in the recent book, but a clearly written critical discussion of the philosophical recent publication of a collection of Russell's writings on philosophical logic background of Russell's political writings, his ambivalence towards pacifism, (introduced and translated by J. M.. Roy), and of new translations (by Fran­ and his relationship with his public. Adam Stephenson expresses dissatisfac­ rrois Rivenc) of The Problems ofPhilosophy and Introduction to Mathematical tion that Russell never produced his grand work of Hegelian synthesis; this Philosophy. failure is blamed on Russell's atomism and individualism, which leave man a The first part of the collection is devoted to philosophy and logic. In the "metaphysical orphan". Dominique Colas provides a brief and sympathetic opening section of this part, on logic and ontology, Philippe de Rouilhan note on Russell's trip to the Soviet Union.
    [Show full text]
  • Putnam and Davidson on Coherence, Truth, and Justification
    The Science of Mind (精神科学) 54 (2016), pp. 51-70. Putnam and Davidson on Coherence, Truth, and Justification Lajos L. Brons Nihon University In the early 1980s both Donald Davidson and Hilary Putnam defended theories that superficially appear to be coherence theories of truth, but that upon closer inspection turn out to be better understood as coherence theories of justification (or perhaps, not as coherence theories at all). In Reason, Truth and History (1981a), Putnam argued that “truth is an idealization of rational acceptability” (55), and that rational acceptability of statements is their “coherence and fit” (id.). And in the same year Davidson gave a talk that would be published two years later as “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge” (1983) in which he defended “what may as well be called a coherence theory of truth and knowledge” (137). There are more interesting similarities between Putnam’s and Davidson’s theories than their closeness in dates of birth, however, and in later work Putnam’s theory further converged with Davidson’s. Furthermore, the most conspicuous difference – the role and nature of “conceptual schemes” – turns out to be smaller and more subtle than it may seem at a first glance. This paper introduces Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherence theories, and discusses the most important differences and similarities. The following two sections summarize “middle” Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherence theories respectively. The two sections after that look into the apparent disagreement on the possibility of different conceptual schemes, and discuss further developments in Putnam’s view and the consequent convergence of Putnam’s and Davidson’s coherentisms.
    [Show full text]