DOCSLIB.ORG

AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES an ESSAY on the THEORY of DESCRIPTIONS by FRANCESCO PUPA a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES an ESSAY on the THEORY of DESCRIPTIONS by FRANCESCO PUPA a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty In AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES AN ESSAY ON THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS by FRANCESCO PUPA 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 2008 ii © 2008 FRANCESCO PUPA 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. David M. Rosenthal Date Chair of Examining Committee John Greenwood Date Executive Officer Michael Devitt Robert W. Fiengo David M. Rosenthal Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract AMBIGUOUS ARTICLES AN ESSAY ON THE THEORY OF DESCRIPTIONS by Francesco Pupa Adviser: Professor Michael Devitt What, from a semantic perspective, is the difference between singular indefinite and definite descriptions? Just over a century ago, Bertrand Russell provided a standard philosophical response. Descriptions are quantifier phrases, not referring expressions. As such, they differ with respect to the quantities they denote. Indefinite descriptions denote existential quantities; definite descriptions denote uniquely existential quantities. Now, while most philosophers were busying themselves defending and expanding upon Russell’s position, some linguists were, quietly and independently, developing a radically different response. Descriptions, some linguists held, were referring expressions, not quantifier phrases. Accordingly, descriptions differ with respect to their rules of reference. Indefinite descriptions refer to ‘novel’ items, definite descriptions to ‘familiar’ ones. Although some philosophers, most prominently Peter Strawson, would independently propose their own familiarity theories and although many linguists of a model-theoretic bent would join lock-step with the Russellians, little attempt was made to bridge the gap between these two seemingly incompatible responses. This dissertation composes the first systematic effort to bridge that gap. It provides a satisfactory answer to the above question which links the seemingly intractable divide between Russellians and familiarity v theorists. This is achieved by utilizing two key observations: Donnellan’s observation and Devitt’s observation. Keith Donnellan observed that speakers use descriptions not only as devices of quantification but also as devices of reference. Michael Devitt, following Donnellan, observed that these two uses, being regular, systematic, and cross-linguistic, have the status of convention in our language. Taken in conjunction, these two observations, I argue, require postulating that descriptions are semantically ambiguous. These observations compel the thoughtful theorist to maintain that descriptions have two distinct semantic functions, one quantificational and one referential. Working within the confines of this ambiguity thesis, I argue that, in a certain sense, all parties to the dispute were right and wrong. On the one hand, Russellians provided a correct semantic account of quantificational descriptions. On the other hand, familiarity theorists presented a general framework that provides a correct account of referential descriptions. Accordingly, the semantic contrast between singular indefinite and definite descriptions is two-fold. Descriptions can contrast either quantificationally or with respect to the speaker’s view of the audience’s familiarity with the description’s referent. Thus, by conjoining the previous responses’ successes and disposing of their failures, I propose a theory that both successfully accounts for the semantic contrast of indefinite and definite descriptions and integrates two seemingly irreconcilable approaches. vi Acknowledgements This work is essentially a collaborative effort. Over the past two years, I have enjoyed an abundance of assistance and encouragement – both intellectual and emotional. I’d like to acknowledge several folks who made this process immensely enjoyable. Working with my adviser, Michael Devitt, proved to be one the most fruitful intellectual activities of my academic career. His influence can be found on every page of this work. Robert Fiengo, Stephen Neale, and David Rosenthal read various earlier versions of the dissertation. Without their comments and criticisms, many factual (and grammatical) mistakes would have remained, many points would have stayed obscure, and many countervailing positions would have remained omitted. Gary Ostertag must have poured over my thesis a half dozen times as well as listened to me carry on about descriptions for an unspeakable amount of time. I owe him a great deal of gratitude for his invaluable suggestions, insights, and, most of all, his generous time. Over the years, conversations with Alan Berger, Saul Kripke, Rita Nolan, and Alex Orenstein have also had an enormous impact on my thought and work. In addition to faculty, I received an enormous amount of intellectual stimulation from my fellow classmates. Erika Troseth and Rachel Szekely’s incisive comments on early incarnations of the dissertation led to much needed clarifications and improvements. Walter Dean’s comments helped me to see what the nature of the articles ambiguity had to be. Countless hours spent discussing semantics with Felipe Amaral, Richard Brown, Jeremy Ginsburg, Joshua Livingston, David Pereplyotchik, and Susan Schweitzer vii provided me with much needed insights into many of the problems I was grappling with. I’m also grateful to the APA Central Division, CUNY Cognitive Science Group, CUNY/SUNY/NYU Linguistics Mini-Conference, Long Island Philosophical Society, Nassau Community College Philosophy Club, and Syracuse University Graduate Student Philosophy Colloquium for providing me with the opportunity to present various aspects of my work. Throughout this process, my family provided needed emotional and economic support. In particular, I’d like to thank my parents Josephine and Glen Mouradian, my siblings Serafina Pupa, Michael Pupa, and Jessica Mouradian, my granny Teresina Rizza, my uncle Salvatore Rizza, my aunt Margherita McGlinchey, my in-laws Rose and Robert Hernandez, my cousin Christopher McGlinchey (look, you’re in a book!), and my best friend Andrew Sbarra. And, finally, I would like to thank my wife Jennifer Pupa. Throughout this process, Jennifer provided both her editorial assistance and semantic intuitions. Moreover, her companionship made, and continues to make, any difficult day manageable. There is no possible world – near or far – in which this dissertation is completed with you. viii Table of Contents The Cast: Descriptions, Scales, Sets, and Chains 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 What are Descriptions? 2 1.2 Horn Scales and Semantic Contrast Sets 5 1.2.1 Horn Scales 5 1.2.2 Semantic Contrast Sets 10 1.2.3 Do the Articles Constitute a Semantic Contrast Set? 11 1.3 Anaphoric Chains: The Articles Complementary Relationship 15 1.3.1 Anaphoric Chains 15 1.3.2 Descriptions as Anaphoric Chains 16 1.4 Conclusions 18 Russell’s Account: General Terms and Uniqueness Entailments 2.0 Introduction 20 2.1 The Singular/General Distinction 21 2.1.1 Singular and General Terms 21 2.1.2 The Distinctive Properties of Singular and General Terms 25 2.2 Russell’s Account of the Indefinite/Definite Contrast 31 2.2.1 Russell’s Semantics and the Indefinite/Definite Contrast 32 2.2.2 Russell’s Account and the Four Tests 39 2.3 A Modification 45 2.3.1 A Problem: Predictions and Informed Assessments 45 2.3.2 Some Solutions 47 2.4 Anaphoric Chains Revisited 51 2.4.1 A Russellian Account of Description-Based Anaphoric Chains 51 2.4.2 A Problem: ‘Elliptical’ Contradiction 54 2.4.3 A Final Issue: The Anaphoric Chain Problem 55 2.5 Conclusions 58 ix 3 Convention and Ambiguity: The Diligent Man’s Approach to the Articles 3.0 Introduction 59 3.1 Russell’s Semantics, Donnellan’s Distinction, and the Ambiguity Thesis 60 3.1.1 Donnellan’s Distinction 60 3.1.2 Donnellan’s Distinction and its Semantical Import 67 3.2 Russellian Accounts of the Referential Use of Descriptions 70 3.3 The Pragmatic Approach 71 3.3.1 Grice’s Theory of Conversational Implicature 71 3.3.2 Referential Uses as Generalized Conversational Implicatures 80 3.3.3 The Pragmatic Approach and Methodology 84 3.3.4 The Pragmatic Approach and Evidence 88 3.3.5 Assessing the Arguments 90 3.3.6 The Collapse of the Pragmatic Approach 102 3.3.6.1 The Pragmatic Approach and Conditionals 102 3.3.6.2 The Pragmatic Approach and Referential Uses of ‘Incomplete’ Definite Descriptions 105 3.3.6.3 The Pragmatic Approach and Convention 108 3.4 The Gödelian Approach 118 3.4.1 Referential Uses as Incomplete Gödelian Uses 118 3.4.2 Assessing the Gödelian Approach 123 3.5 Conclusions 131 4 Novelty and Familiarity: The Referential Articles and Their Character 4.0 Introduction 132 4.1 A Complication: Context-Sensitivity 133 4.1.1 English and English* 133 4.1.2 Context-Sensitivity 134 4.2 Content and Character 138 4.2.1 The Content/Character Distinction 138 4.2.2 The Articles and Character 141 4.3 Novel and Familiar Characters 142 4.3.1 FT ’s Modern Roots 143 4.3.1.1 Christophersen’s Heterogeneous FT 143 4.3.1.2 Strawson’s Homogeneous FT 148 4.3.2 Prompting, Reference, and Identification 151 4.3.3 The Referential Articles and Their Character 156 4.3.3.1 Character and Reference 157 4.3.3.1.1 A Brief Interlude: Reference and Discourse Reference 158 4.3.3.2 Character and Supposition 161 4.3.3.3 Character and Immediate Identification 162 4.3.4 The Referential Articles as a Semantic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Daniel C. Dennett
    Last updated 2002 Curriculum Vitae DANIEL C. DENNETT PERSONAL: Born, March 28, 1942. Married to Susan Bell Dennett; two children. ADDRESS: 20 Ironwood Road, No. Andover, MA 01845 U.S.A. EDUCATION: B.A., Harvard University, 1963 D. Phil. (philosophy), Oxford, 1965 FELLOWSHIPS: Woodrow Wilson Fellowship, 1963 (declined, to study at Oxford). Guggenheim Fellowship, 1973-74 (declined in favor of next two items). Santayana Fellowship, Harvard University, 1974 (honorary). N. E. H. Younger Humanist Fellowship, 1974. Fulbright Research Fellowship to the University, Bristol, England, 1978. Visiting Fellowship, All Souls College, Oxford, 1979. N. E. H. Senior Fellowship, 1979. Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, 1979-80. Guggenheim Fellowship, 1986-87. Fellow, Zentrum für Interdisciplinäre Forschung, Bielefeld, Germany, 1990. Writer in Residence, Bellagio Study and Conference Center, Italy, 1990. Visiting Erskine Fellow, Univ. of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1995. SPECIAL LECTURESHIPS: Taft Lectures, University of Cincinnati, 1978. Luce Distinguished Lecture in Cognitive Science, University of Rochester, 1979. Herbert Spencer Lecture, Oxford University, 1979. Princeton University Annual Philosophy Lectures, 1980. Sloan Visiting Scientist Lectures, Dept. of Computer Science, Yale University, 1980. Council for Philosophical Studies, Summer Institute on Psychology and the Philosophy of Mind, Univ. of Washington, Seattle, July 1981. John Locke Lectures, Oxford University, April, May, 1983. Gavin David Young Lectures, University of Adelaide, Australia, June, July, 1984. Gramlich Memorial Lecture, Philosophy Department, Dartmouth College, April 24, 1985. Visiting Professor, Ecole Normale Supérieure, Paris, May, 1985. John Dewey Lecture, University of Vermont, February 13, 1986. Distinguished Lecture Series, MIT Laboratory of Computer Science, March 13, 1986. Tanner Lecture, University of Michigan, November 6, 1986.
    [Show full text]
  • Semantical Paradox* Tyler Burge
    4 Semantical Paradox* Tyler Burge Frege remarked that the goal of all sciences is truth, but that it falls to logic to discern the laws of truth. Perceiving that the task of determining these laws went beyond Frege’s conception of it, Tarski enlarged the jurisdiction of logic, establishing semantics as truth’s lawyer.1 At the core of Tarski’s theory of truth and validity was a diagnosis of the Liar paradox according to which natural language was hopelessly infected with contradiction. Tarski construed himself as treating the disease by replacing ordinary discourse with a sanitized, artificial construction. But those interested in natural language have been dissatisfied with this medication. The best ground for dis­ satisfaction is that the notion of a natural language’s harboring contradictions is based on an illegitimate assimilation of natural language to a semantical system. According to that assimilation, part of the nature of a “language” is a set of postulates that purport to be true by virtue of their meaning or are at least partially constitutive of that “language”. Tarski thought that he had identified just such postulates in natural language as spawning inconsistency. But postulates are contained in theories that are promoted by people. Natural languages per se do not postulate or Tyler Burge, “Semantical Paradox", reprinted from The Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979), 169-98. Copyright © 1979 The Journal of Philosophy. Reprinted by permission of the Editor of The Journal of Philosophy and the author. * I am grateful to Robert L. Martin for several helpful discussions; to Herbert Enderton for proving the consistency (relative to that of arithmetic) of an extension of Construction C3; to Charles Parsons for stimulating exchanges back in 1973 and 1974; and to the John Simon Guggenheim Foundation for its support.
    [Show full text]
  • Puzzles About Descriptive Names Edward Kanterian
    Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian To cite this version: Edward Kanterian. Puzzles about descriptive names. Linguistics and Philosophy, Springer Verlag, 2010, 32 (4), pp.409-428. 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1. hal-00566732 HAL Id: hal-00566732 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00566732 Submitted on 17 Feb 2011 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Linguist and Philos (2009) 32:409–428 DOI 10.1007/s10988-010-9066-1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Puzzles about descriptive names Edward Kanterian Published online: 17 February 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract This article explores Gareth Evans’s idea that there are such things as descriptive names, i.e. referring expressions introduced by a definite description which have, unlike ordinary names, a descriptive content. Several ignored semantic and modal aspects of this idea are spelled out, including a hitherto little explored notion of rigidity, super-rigidity. The claim that descriptive names are (rigidified) descriptions, or abbreviations thereof, is rejected. It is then shown that Evans’s theory leads to certain puzzles concerning the referential status of descriptive names and the evaluation of identity statements containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Putnam's Theory of Natural Kinds and Their Names Is Not The
    PUTNAM’S THEORY OF NATURAL KINDS AND THEIR NAMES IS NOT THE SAME AS KRIPKE’S IAN HACKING Collège de France Abstract Philosophers have been referring to the “Kripke–Putnam” theory of natural- kind terms for over 30 years. Although there is one common starting point, the two philosophers began with different motivations and presuppositions, and developed in different ways. Putnam’s publications on the topic evolved over the decades, certainly clarifying and probably modifying his analysis, while Kripke published nothing after 1980. The result is two very different theories about natural kinds and their names. Both accept that the meaning of a natural- kind term is not given by a description or defining properties, but is specified by its referents. From then on, Putnam rejected even the label, causal theory of reference, preferring to say historical, or collective. He called his own approach indexical. His account of substance identity stops short a number of objections that were later raised, such as what is called the qua problem. He came to reject the thought that water is necessarily H2O, and to denounce the idea of metaphysical necessity that goes beyond physical necessity. Essences never had a role in his analysis; there is no sense in which he was an essentialist. He thought of hidden structures as the usual determinant of natural kinds, but always insisted that what counts as a natural kind is relative to interests. “Natural kind” itself is itself an importantly theoretical concept, he argued. The paper also notes that Putnam says a great deal about what natural kinds are, while Kripke did not.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): Mathematician, Logician, and Philosopher
    Louis deRosset { Spring 2019 Russell: The Theory of Descriptions 1. Bertrand Russell (1872-1970): mathematician, logician, and philosopher. He's one of the founders of analytic philosophy. \On Denoting" is a founding document of analytic philosophy. It is a paradigm of philosophical analysis. An analysis of a concept/phenomenon c: a recipe for eliminating c-vocabulary from our theories which still captures all of the facts the c-vocabulary targets. FOR EXAMPLE: \The Name View Analysis of Identity." 2. Russell's target: Denoting Phrases By a \denoting phrase" I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present King of England, the present King of France, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth round the sun, the revolution of the sun round the earth. (479) Includes: • universals: \all F 's" (\each"/\every") • existentials: \some F " (\at least one") • indefinite descriptions: \an F " • definite descriptions: \the F " Later additions: • negative existentials: \no F 's" (480) • Genitives: \my F " (\your"/\their"/\Joe's"/etc.) (484) • Empty Proper Names: \Apollo", \Hamlet", etc. (491) Russell proposes to analyze denoting phrases. 3. Why Analyze Denoting Phrases? Russell's Project: The distinction between acquaintance and knowledge about is the distinction between the things we have presentation of, and the things we only reach by means of denoting phrases. [. ] In perception we have acquaintance with the objects of perception, and in thought we have acquaintance with objects of a more abstract logical character; but we do not necessarily have acquaintance with the objects denoted by phrases composed of words with whose meanings we are ac- quainted.
    [Show full text]
  • Reference and Reinterpretation
    Reference and Reinterpretation by Anthony Kulic A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2007 ©Anthony Kulic, 2007 Author’s Declaration I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this thesis. This is a true copy of the thesis, including any required final revisions, as accepted by my examiners. I understand that my thesis may be made electronically available to the public. ii Abstract Reference is the relation held to obtain between an expression and what a speaker or thinker intends the expression to represent. Reference is a component of interpretation, the process of giving terms, sentences, and thoughts semantic content. An example of reference in a formal context involves the natural numbers, where each one can be taken to have a corresponding set‐theoretic counterpart as its referent. In an informal context reference is exemplified by the relation between a name and the specific name‐bearer when a speaker or thinker utters or has the name in mind. Recent debates over reference have concerned the mechanism of reference: How is it that we can refer? In informal contexts, externalists see the reference relation as explicable in terms of the salient causal relations involved in the naming of a thing, or a class of things, and the ensuing causal chains leading to a term’s use. Opponents of this view— internalists—see the reference relation as being conceptually direct, and they take the external approach to rely on untenable metaphysical assumptions about the world’s structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions PHIL 83104 September 5, 2011 1. Denoting phrases and names ...........................................................................................1 2. Russell’s theory of denoting phrases ................................................................................3 2.1. Propositions and propositional functions 2.2. Indefinite descriptions 2.3. Definite descriptions 3. The three puzzles of ‘On denoting’ ..................................................................................7 3.1. The substitution of identicals 3.2. The law of the excluded middle 3.3. The problem of negative existentials 4. Objections to Russell’s theory .......................................................................................11 4.1. Incomplete definite descriptions 4.2. Referential uses of definite descriptions 4.3. Other uses of ‘the’: generics 4.4. The contrast between descriptions and names [The main reading I gave you was Russell’s 1919 paper, “Descriptions,” which is in some ways clearer than his classic exposition of the theory of descriptions, which was in his 1905 paper “On Denoting.” The latter is one of the optional readings on the web site, and I reference it below sometimes as well.] 1. DENOTING PHRASES AND NAMES Russell defines the class of denoting phrases as follows: “By ‘denoting phrase’ I mean a phrase such as any one of the following: a man, some man, any man, every man, all men, the present king of England, the centre of mass of the Solar System at the first instant of the twentieth century, the revolution of the earth around the sun, the revolution of the sun around the earth. Thus a phrase is denoting solely in virtue of its form.” (‘On Denoting’, 479) Russell’s aim in this article is to explain how expressions like this work — what they contribute to the meanings of sentences containing them.
    [Show full text]
  • Canadian Journal of Philosophy a Defense Of
    Canadian Journal of Philosophy A Defense of Derangement Author(s): Paul M. Pietroski Source: Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Mar., 1994), pp. 95-117 Published by: Canadian Journal of Philosophy Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40231855 Accessed: 07-03-2019 17:45 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Canadian Journal of Philosophy is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Canadian Journal of Philosophy This content downloaded from 165.230.225.90 on Thu, 07 Mar 2019 17:45:29 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY 95 Volume 24, Number 1, March 1994, pp. 95 - 118 A Defense of Derangement PAULM.PIETROSKI McGill University Montreal, QC H3A2T7 Canada In a recent paper, Bar-On and Risjord (henceforth, 'B&R') contend that Davidson provides no good argument for his (in)famous claim that 'there is no such thing as a language/1 And according to B&R, if David- son had established his 'no language' thesis, he would thereby have provided a decisive reason for abandoning the project he has long advocated - viz., that of trying to provide theories of meaning for natural languages by providing recursive theories of truth for such languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Russell's Theory of Descriptions
    Russell’s theory of descriptions September 23, 2004 1 Propositions and propositional functions . 1 2 Descriptions and names . 3 2.1 Indefinite descriptions do not stand for particular objects in the same waynamesdo ............................... 3 2.2 Three puzzles caused by the assimilation of definite descriptions to names . 4 2.2.1 The problem of negative existentials . 4 2.2.2 Substitution failures . 5 2.2.3 The law of the excluded middle . 5 2.3 The distinction between primary and secondary occurrence . 5 3 Russell’s theory of descriptions . 6 3.1 Indefinite descriptions . 6 3.2 Definite descriptions . 6 3.3 ‘Everyone’, ‘someone’ . 7 3.4 Strengths of Russell’s theory . 7 4 Objections to Russell’s theory . 7 4.1 Incomplete definite descriptions . 7 4.2 Other uses of ‘the’: generics . 7 4.3 The view that sentences containing descriptions say something about propositional functions . 8 5 Russell’s view of names . 8 6 The metaphysical importance of Russell’s theory . 8 1 Propositions and propositional functions Russell (unlike contemporary theorists) means by ‘proposition’, as he puts it, “pri- marily a form of words which expresses what is either true or false.” Roughly, then, ‘propositions’ in Russell refers to ‘declarative sentences.’ Propositional functions are something else: “A ‘propositional function,’ in fact, is an expression containing one or more undetermined constituents, such that, when values are assigned to 1 these constituents, the expression becomes a proposition. Examples of propositional functions are easy to give: “x is human” is a propositional function; so long as x remains undetermined, it is neither true nor false, but when a value is assigned to x it becomes a true or false proposition.” (An Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, pp.
    [Show full text]
  • Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory
    1 To appear in Romina Padró and Yale Weiss (eds.), Saul Kripke on Modal Logic. New York: Springer. Accepting a Logic, Accepting a Theory Timothy Williamson Abstract: This chapter responds to Saul Kripke’s critique of the idea of adopting an alternative logic. It defends an anti-exceptionalist view of logic, on which coming to accept a new logic is a special case of coming to accept a new scientific theory. The approach is illustrated in detail by debates on quantified modal logic. A distinction between folk logic and scientific logic is modelled on the distinction between folk physics and scientific physics. The importance of not confusing logic with metalogic in applying this distinction is emphasized. Defeasible inferential dispositions are shown to play a major role in theory acceptance in logic and mathematics as well as in natural and social science. Like beliefs, such dispositions are malleable in response to evidence, though not simply at will. Consideration is given to the Quinean objection that accepting an alternative logic involves changing the subject rather than denying the doctrine. The objection is shown to depend on neglect of the social dimension of meaning determination, akin to the descriptivism about proper names and natural kind terms criticized by Kripke and Putnam. Normal standards of interpretation indicate that disputes between classical and non-classical logicians are genuine disagreements. Keywords: Modal logic, intuitionistic logic, alternative logics, Kripke, Quine, Dummett, Putnam Author affiliation: Oxford University, U.K. Email: [email protected] 2 1. Introduction I first encountered Saul Kripke in my first term as an undergraduate at Oxford University, studying mathematics and philosophy, when he gave the 1973 John Locke Lectures (later published as Kripke 2013).
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Donald Davidson
    An interview with Donald Davidson Donald Davidson is an analytic philosopher in the tradition of Wittgenstein and Quine, and his formulations of action, truth and communicative interaction have generated considerable debate in philosophical circles around the world. The following "interview" actually took place over two continents and several years. It's merely a part of what must now be literally hundreds of hours of taped conversations between Professor Davidson and myself. I hope that what follows will give you a flavor of Donald Davidson, the person, as well as the philosopher. I begin with some of the first tapes he and I made, beginning in Venice, spring of 1988, continuing in San Marino, in spring of 1990, and in St Louis, in winter of 1991, concerning his induction into academia. With some insight into how Professor Davidson came to the profession, a reader might look anew at some of his philosophical writings; as well as get a sense of how the careerism unfortunately so integral to academic life today was so alien to the generation of philosophers Davidson is a member of. The very last part of this interview is from more recent tapes and represents Professor Davidson's effort to try to make his philosophical ideas available to a more general audience. Lepore: Tell me a bit about the early days. Davidson: I was born in Springfield, Massachusetts, on March 6, 1917 to Clarence ("Davie") Herbert Davidson and Grace Cordelia Anthony. My mother's father's name was "Anthony" but her mother had married twice and by coincidence both her husbands were named "Anthony".
    [Show full text]
  • The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol
    The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 1 Draft of 10/18/08 Keith DeRose [email protected] Chapter 1: Contextualism, Invariantism, Skepticism, and 1 What Goes On in Ordinary Conversation Chapter 2: The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism 50 Chapter 3: Assertion, Knowledge, and Context 87 Chapter 4: Single Scoreboard Semantics 138 Chapter 5: “Bamboozled by Our Own Words”: Semantic 165 Blindness and Some Objections to Contextualism Chapter 6: Now You Know It, Now You Don’t: 201 Intellectualism, Contextualism, and Subject-Sensitive Invariantism Chapter 7: Knowledge, Assertion and Action: Contextualism 246 vs. Subject-Sensitive Invariantism References 302 Acknowledgements vii Chapter 1: Contextualism, Invariantism, Skepticism, and 1 What Goes On in Ordinary Conversation 1. Contextualism and the Old Bank Cases 1 2. Cases Involving Speakers in Different Conversations Talking About the Same 4 Subject 3. Contextualism and Invariantism 7 4. “Strength of Epistemic Position,” Comparative Conditionals, and Generic 8 Contextualism 5. Semantic Mechanism? 10 6. Which Claims to Take Seriously and the “Floor” of “Know(s)” 15 7. Is This Epistemology or Philosophy of Language? 20 8. Contextualism Regarding Other Epistemic Terms 22 9. Contextualism is Not a Thesis about the Structure of Knowledge or of Justification 23 10. “Subject” Vs. “Attributor” Contextualism 24 11. Intellectualism and the Distinction between “Classical” and “Subject-Sensitive” 26 Invariantism 12. A Brief History of Contextualism 28 13. Contextualism, Invariantism, and Relevant Alternatives 32 14. Against Contextualist Versions of RA That Tie the Content of Knowledge 37 Attributing Claim Directly to What the Range of Relevant Alternatives Is 15. Against Contrastivism 41 16.
    [Show full text]