DOCSLIB.ORG

Andrew Tweedie

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Andrew Tweedie Reference and Grammar: Reasserting Wittgenstein’s Picture by Andrew Tweedie A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario © 2015 Andrew Tweedie ii Abstract The aim of this essay is to present a novel line of argument in support of Ludwig Wittgenstein’s view of philosophy of language. It consists in three parts. First, it explores a family of referential theories of meaning belonging to the tradition of Millian semantics – a family dubbed ‘Millian externalism.’ Second, it draws on the work of both Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky to undermine the tenability of Millian externalism, all the while generating insights into the nature of an adequate semantic theory as it proceeds. And third, from the fact that Millian externalism fails insofar as it purports to be a scientific theory of meaning, the essay concludes that philosophy of language must give in to a theory of meaning which endorses Wittgensteinian quietism. If it refuses, then it must conform to the methodology of linguistics. iii Table of Contents Abstract ………………………….…..…………………….………..…………… ii Introduction ……………………………………..…………………………….. 1 Chapter 1: The Millian Externalists ……………………………… 6 Chapter 2: Relata, Grammars, and Explanations ……… 27 Chapter 3: The Quietist Picture ……………………..…………… 60 Afterword ………………………..…………………………………………..... 91 References …….…………………………………………..………….....…... 92 1 Introduction i. It would be understated, to say the least, if one were to remark that there are evident contrasts between Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky.1 Whereas Wittgenstein steadfastly rejected the idea that language could be subjected to scientific analysis, Chomsky has arguably been the single most influential individual in modern science of language; and whereas Wittgenstein’s hostility for mentalist theories of meaning led him to become the father of semantic externalism, Chomsky is recognized as having been the first to lay a conceptual foundation for a cognitivist approach to linguistics. On the face of it then, there seem to be no two individuals more polarized in their ideas than Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky. It therefore comes as a surprise to be told that followers of Wittgenstein find an unlikely ally in Chomsky in their pursuit of a quietist philosophy of language.2 1 Unless otherwise stated, references to Ludwig Wittgenstein in this paper will always be made with regards to his later work, beginning in the 1930’s with The Blue and Brown Books (1958), and culminating in his Philosophical Investigations (1953). 2 Quietism is the metaphilosophical position which states philosophy has no specialized subject matter, and no positive theses to contribute to our knowledge. It urges that philosophy is not a body of facts or theory, but rather an activity whereby intellectual discomforts are resolved by examining our use of concepts and expressions. 2 ii. In the following pages, we have but one goal: to discern the features of a satisfactory theory of meaning through a critique of referential semantics, and to thereafter propose a theory of meaning which embodies these features. In the course of this project, the ideas of both Wittgenstein and Chomsky feature prominently – not as contrasting counterparts, but rather as complimentary lines of attack against a family of referential theories of meaning which belong to the tradition of Millian semantics. This family of theories, dubbed ‘Millian externalism,’ serves as a foil to the theory of meaning which is proposed at the project’s end. It is therefore through an extensive criticism of Millian externalism that we arrive at this proposal, since an examination of Millian externalism’s faults reveals to us the many requirements which a semantic theory must satisfy if it is to be a genuine, explanatory theory of meaning. Incidentally, it turns out that such a theory of meaning must be one which is reconciled to Wittgenstein’s quietist picture of philosophy of language. To understand why this must be the case, we need to discuss the project’s overall structure. There are three chapters. In the first chapter, we begin with a detailed exploration of Millian externalism, tracing its historical roots and identifying the central characteristics of its approach to semantic content. To put it generally, a referential theory of meaning is ‘Millian externalist’ if its approach to semantic content is extensional, externalist, and anti-individualist. Upon discussing these features at length, we then turn to Millian externalism’s metasemantic foundations, where it soon becomes evident that Millian externalism aspires to be an empirical theory which is continuous with scientific investigation. 3 It is not until the second chapter that Millian externalism is subjected to scrutiny. Here, we begin with a pair of Chomskian arguments, as presented by Robert Stainton (2006), which argue against the possibility of a scientific theory of meaning constructed from word-world relations. The arguments achieve this conclusion by advancing the claim that referential theories’ objects of study are not ‘real’ in the way which is required for scientific intelligibility, and thus there can be no science which investigates the relations of reference which occur among them. This ‘Chomskian critique’ effectively opens the door for a second line of argument, one which proceeds from an entirely different direction; issuing from the perspective of common sense and ordinary discourse, the ‘Wittgensteinian critique’ explores what it is for a theory to be genuinely explanatory, and thereafter concludes that referential theories of meaning fail to explain the phenomenon of meaning. The second chapter then concludes with the observation that whatever theory of meaning we propose as an alternative to Millian externalism, it must be what Michael Dummett (1996) called a ‘theory of understanding.’ That is, it must explain what it is speakers know when they are competent with a language. The third chapter concludes the project. Proceeding from insights gleaned from the previous chapter’s attack on Millian externalism, we begin the third chapter by noting that a satisfactory theory of meaning must reverse the Millian externalist approach to semantic content all the way down. In a word, a satisfactory theory of meaning must be intensional, internalist, and individualist. Upon acknowledging this, it is proposed that a version of conceptual role semantics (i.e., a family of theories which explicate the meanings of expressions 4 in terms of expressions’ use in thought) might satisfy all these requirements. However, before we can even endorse a particular version of conceptual role semantics, a problem arises. Specifically, a more general examination of the causes for Millian externalism’s vulnerability to the Chomskian critique (as presented in the second chapter) reveals that whatever version of conceptual role semantics we elect to adopt, it must be one which is stripped of all normative concepts and objects. Simply put, it must be a theory which does not resemble a traditional philosophical theory of meaning in any way. This in turn raises the question of why we should not adopt Chomsky’s approach to semantics – a question for which we have no answer. And in lacking an answer, we cannot help but observe that the Chomskian critique we employed against Millian externalism has an unsettling conclusion: philosophy of language ought to become indistinguishable from linguistics. The third chapter ends with an alternative to this proposed sad state of affairs. Upon noting that Millian externalism was vulnerable to the Chomskian critique only because it simultaneously i) attempted to approximate to a scientific theory, and ii) invoked the normative categories and concepts of common sense, we arrive at the observation that a philosophical theory of language can evade the Chomskian critique so long as it gives up one of these two aspirations. At this point, I urge the reader to give up the former, since this would allow a philosophical theory of meaning to retain philosophy of language’s historic subject matter. This victory, however, comes at a cost: because a philosophical theory of meaning can only dodge the Chomskian critique by confining itself to the framework of common sense and ordinary discourse, it follows that 5 philosophy of language must reconcile itself to Wittgensteinian quietism. Namely, it cannot expect to produce discoveries comparable to those of science, but rather can only aspire to make contributions to our understanding. The remainder of the third chapter then ends with a general sketch of a version of conceptual role semantics which would accommodate Wittgenstein’s quietism. iii. In the upcoming pages, I take care not to forecast the conclusions of future chapters, since I wish for the reader to arrive at the project’s final conclusion by way of incremental steps. In this sense then, the project proceeds much like an investigation which gradually builds upon itself as time passes, slowly amassing insights and observations until it constructs something worthwhile. I will confess, however, that the project’s conclusion was conceived well before it was undertaken. To elaborate, at the beginning of this introduction I noted various ways in which the ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Noam Chomsky strike hard contrasts. Yet, I failed to mention one other way in which they differ: Wittgenstein was of the opinion that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy
    CRITICAL NOTICE Why We Need Ordinary Language Philosophy Sandra Laugier, Translated by Daniela Ginsberg, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2013, pp. 168, £ 24.50. ISBN-13: 978-0-226-47054-2 (cloth). Reviewed by Derek A. McDougall Originally published in French in the year 2000, the English version of Sandra Laugier’s short book of 10 Chapters plus an Introduction and Conclusion, has a 7 page Preface, 9 pages of Notes, a brief Bibliography and 121 pages of actual text. The reading of Wittgenstein and Austin that she provides is distinctly Cavellian in character. Indeed, Stanley Cavell in a dust-cover quote, remarks that her work is already influential in France and Italy, exciting as it does a new interest in ‘language conceived not only as a cognitive capacity but also as used, and meant, as part of our form of life’. Cavell goes on to say that this new translation is not merely welcome but indispensable, and has at least the capacity to alter prevailing views about the philosophy of language, so affecting what we have come to think of as the ‘analytic-continental divide’. Toril Moi of Duke Uni., in another dust-cover quote, states that Laugier’s reading of Wittgenstein-Austin-Cavell shows how their claim that ‘to speak about language is to speak about the world is an antimetaphysical revolution in philosophy that tranforms our understanding of epistemology and ethics.’ She concludes with the thought that anyone who wishes to understand what ‘ordinary language philosophy’ means today should read this book. This is a large claim to make, and anyone who is inclined to read Wittgenstein and Austin strictly in their own terms, and with their own avowed intentions - where discernible - steadily in view, is almost bound to conclude that it is simply not true.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction to Philosophy of Science
    INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE The aim of philosophy of science is to understand what scientists did and how they did it, where history of science shows that they performed basic research very well. Therefore to achieve this aim, philosophers look back to the great achievements in the evolution of modern science that started with the Copernicus with greater emphasis given to more recent accomplishments. The earliest philosophy of science in the last two hundred years is Romanticism, which started as a humanities discipline and was later adapted to science as a humanities specialty. The Romantics view the aim of science as interpretative understanding, which is a mentalistic ontology acquired by introspection. They call language containing this ontology “theory”. The most successful science sharing in the humanities aim is economics, but since the development of econometrics that enables forecasting and policy, the humanities aim is mixed with the natural science aim of prediction and control. Often, however, econometricians have found that successful forecasting by econometric models must be purchased at the price of rejecting equation specifications based on the interpretative understanding supplied by neoclassical macroeconomic and microeconomic theory. In this context the term “economic theory” means precisely such neoclassical equation specifications. Aside from economics Romanticism has little relevance to the great accomplishments in the history of science, because its concept of the aim of science has severed it from the benefits of the examination of the history of science. The Romantic philosophy of social science is still resolutely practiced in immature sciences such as sociology, where mentalistic description prevails, where quantification and prediction are seldom attempted, and where implementation in social policy is seldom effective and often counterproductive.
    [Show full text]
  • Stoicism a School of Thought That Flourished in Greek and Roman
    Stoicism A school of thought that flourished in Greek and Roman antiquity. It was one of the loftiest and most sublime philosophies in the record of Western civilization. In urging participation in the affairs of man, Stoics have always believed that the goal of all inquiry is to provide man with a mode of conduct characterized by tranquillity of mind and certainty of moral worth. Nature and scope of Stoicism For the early Stoic philosopher, as for all the post-Aristotelian schools, knowledge and its pursuit are no longer held to be ends in themselves. The Hellenistic Age was a time of transition, and the Stoic philosopher was perhaps its most influential spokesman. A new culture was in the making. The heritage of an earlier period, with Athens as its intellectual leader, was to continue, but to undergo many changes. If, as with Socrates, to know is to know oneself, rationality as the sole means by which something outside of the self might be achieved may be said to be the hallmark of Stoic belief. As a Hellenistic philosophy, Stoicism presented an ars vitae, a way of accommodation for people to whom the human condition no longer appeared as the mirror of a universal, calm, and ordered existence. Reason alone could reveal the constancy of cosmic order and the originative source of unyielding value; thus, reason became the true model for human existence. To the Stoic, virtue is an inherent feature of the world, no less inexorable in relation to man than are the laws of nature. The Stoics believed that perception is the basis of true knowledge.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University
    Philosophy of Language in the Twentieth Century Jason Stanley Rutgers University In the Twentieth Century, Logic and Philosophy of Language are two of the few areas of philosophy in which philosophers made indisputable progress. For example, even now many of the foremost living ethicists present their theories as somewhat more explicit versions of the ideas of Kant, Mill, or Aristotle. In contrast, it would be patently absurd for a contemporary philosopher of language or logician to think of herself as working in the shadow of any figure who died before the Twentieth Century began. Advances in these disciplines make even the most unaccomplished of its practitioners vastly more sophisticated than Kant. There were previous periods in which the problems of language and logic were studied extensively (e.g. the medieval period). But from the perspective of the progress made in the last 120 years, previous work is at most a source of interesting data or occasional insight. All systematic theorizing about content that meets contemporary standards of rigor has been done subsequently. The advances Philosophy of Language has made in the Twentieth Century are of course the result of the remarkable progress made in logic. Few other philosophical disciplines gained as much from the developments in logic as the Philosophy of Language. In the course of presenting the first formal system in the Begriffsscrift , Gottlob Frege developed a formal language. Subsequently, logicians provided rigorous semantics for formal languages, in order to define truth in a model, and thereby characterize logical consequence. Such rigor was required in order to enable logicians to carry out semantic proofs about formal systems in a formal system, thereby providing semantics with the same benefits as increased formalization had provided for other branches of mathematics.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ascent from Nominalism Philosophical Studies Series
    THE ASCENT FROM NOMINALISM PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES SERIES Editors: WILFRID SELLARS, University of Pittsburgh KEITH LEHRER, University of Arizona Board of Consulting Editors: J ON A THAN BENNETT, Syracuse University ALLAN GIBBARD, University of Michigan ROBERT STALNAKER, Cornell University ROBERT G. TURNBULL, Ohio State University VOLUME 37 TERR Y PENNER Department of Philosophy, The University of Wisconsin at Madison, U.S.A. THE ASCENT FROM NOMINALISM Some Existence Arguments in Plato's Middle Dialogues D. REIDEL PUBLISHING COMPANY ~~ A MEMBER OF THE KLUWER . ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS GROUP DORDRECHTj BOSTONj LANCASTERjTOKYO Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Penner, Terry, 1936- The ascent from nominalism. (Philosophical studies series; v. 37) Bibliography: p. Includes indexes. 1. Plato. 2. Aristotle. 3. Metaphysics-History. 4. Nominalism-History. I. Title. II. Series. B395.P347 1987 111'.2'0924 86·31641 ISBN-13: 978-94-010-8186-3 e-ISBN-13: 978-94-009-3791-8 DOl: 10.1007/978-94-009-3791-8 Published by D. Reidel Publishing Company, P.O. Box 17, 3300 AA Dordrecht, Holland. Sold and distributed in the U.S.A. and Canada by Kluwer Academic Publishers, 101 Philip Drive, Assinippi Park, Norwell, MA 02061, U.S.A. In all other countries, sold and distributed by Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, P.O. Box 322, 3300 AH Dordrecht, Holland. All Rights Reserved © 1987 by D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht, Holland Softcover reprint of the hardcover I 5t edition 1987 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical induding photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Much of this work was conceived and executed between 1971 and 1975, though some of it was done much earlier, and a few bits are quite recent.
    [Show full text]
  • PHIL-36 - Philosophy of Language Amherst College Spring 2009 – Visiting Prof
    PHIL-36 - Philosophy of Language Amherst College Spring 2009 – Visiting Prof. Kevin C. Klement (UMass faculty member) Mondays and Wednesdays 12:30pm-1:50pm in Cooper House 201. Course description: “Caesar was stabbed.” With those words, I can make a claim about someone who lived in the distant past. How is that possible? How do our words succeed in picking out particular portions of reality, even ones with which we have had no contact? How does language enable us to convey thoughts about everything from Amherst College, to the hopes of a friend, to the stars beyond our galaxy? What are the thoughts, or the meanings, that our words carry? And whatever they turn out to be, how do they come to be associated with our words: through some mental activity on our part, or instead through our shared use of language? This course covers selected topics in 20th century analytic philosophy of language, including meaning, reference, naming, truth, speech acts, propositional attitudes, translation, and the nature of linguistic representation. Contact info: You may e-mail me at [email protected], which is often the best way to reach me. I have a mailbox in the Amherst College philosophy department office (208 Cooper House). My office at UMass is 353 Bartlett Hall, and I also have access to Prof. Alexander George’s Office (307 Cooper House) for meetings at Amherst College. My UMass office phone is 545-5784. My office hours there are Tuesdays 2:30-3:30pm, Thursdays 11am-12pm and other times by appointment. I am also happy to make an appointment to meet with you at AC instead.
    [Show full text]
  • Filosofo Vol 11.Indd
    ARTIGO WHISTLIN’ PAST THE GRAVEYARD: QUIETISM AND PHILOSOPHICAL ENGAGEMENT WHISTLIN’ PAST THE GRA- VEYARD: QUIETISM AND PHI- LOSOPHICAL ENGAGEMENT1 Manuel de Pinedo Garcia (Universi- dade de Granada) [email protected] Resumo: nos últimos anos, John McDowell tem proposto uma concepção de filosofia em que o objetivo da disciplina não é oferecer teses substan- ciais, mas antes revelar modos de pensar e premissas ocultas que estão na base da filosofia construtiva. Esta visão terapêutica tem sido chamada ‘quie- tismo’ e deve muito a algumas idéias favoritas de Wittgenstein ao longo de toda a sua vida. No entanto, a obra de Wittgenstein (e, talvez, também a de McDowell) parece oscilar entre duas compreensões de quietismo: pode-se ser quietista por não macular aquilo que é mais importante com discussões explícitas ou pode-se ser quietista por não ter nada a dizer. Argumentare- mos que o segundo tipo do quietismo não implica recusar em se ocupar com a filosofia do passado, nem tampouco adotar uma atitude contempla- tiva. A concentração sobre o particular, em ética tanto quanto em qualquer outra área da filosofia, é suficiente para minar as ambições universalistas da filosofia tradicional e descortinar um aumento na ação filosófica. Palavras-chave: quietismo, Wittgenstein, John McDowell, particularismo, linguagem. 1 BEING QUIET AS BEING SILENT Philosophy’s traditional aspirations have never been mo- dest. Philosophers have seen themselves as offering a founda- tion for all knowledge, as aiming towards the most general kind of knowledge or even as providing the framework where all that Philósophos 11 (2) : 141-161, ago./dez. 2007 141 Manuel de Pinedo Garcia can be known should fit.
    [Show full text]
  • The Philosophy of Science in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations
    Loyola University Chicago Loyola eCommons Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations 1973 The Philosophy of Science in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations Michael. Budarz Loyola University Chicago Follow this and additional works at: https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses Recommended Citation Budarz, Michael., "The Philosophy of Science in Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations" (1973). Master's Theses. 2723. https://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/2723 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License. Copyright © 1973 Michael. Budarz The Philosophy of Science in Witt~enstein's Philosophical Investigations Michael Buda.rz 1441 W. Howard St. Chicago, Illinois 60626 274-0526 Contents Chapter I - Introduction p.2 Chapter II - Language p .J,..t' I~ Chapter III - Mathematics p.~ 119 Chapter IV - Science p.65 Bibliography p.82 1 I INTRODUCTION There is an article written by Gilbert Ryle en­ titled "The Work of an Influential but Little-known Philosopher of Science: Ludwig Wittgenstein" which ap­ peared in "Scientific American" in September 1957. Amaz­ ingly~ this title would still be appropriate today, 15 yeqrs later, in spite of the fact that Wittgenstein is a popular figure in Philosophy and in spite of the fact that he does have things to say to, or about, the sci- 2 3 ent1fic enterprise. The aim of this essay is to explore this rather neglected aspect of Wittgenstein's thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Scholasticism, the Medieval Synthesis CVSP 202 General Lecture Monday, March 23, 2015 Encountering Aristotle in the Middle-Ages Hani Hassan [email protected]
    Scholasticism, The Medieval Synthesis CVSP 202 General Lecture Monday, March 23, 2015 Encountering Aristotle in the middle-ages Hani Hassan [email protected] PART I – SCHOLASTIC PHILOSOPHY SCHOLASTIC: “from Middle French scholastique, from Latin scholasticus "learned," from Greek skholastikos "studious, learned"” 1 Came to be associated with the ‘teachers’ and churchmen in European Universities whose work was generally rooted in Aristotle and the Church Fathers. A. Re-discovering Aristotle & Co – c. 12th Century The Toledo school: translating Arabic & Hebrew philosophy and science as well as Arabic & Hebrew translations of Aristotle and commentaries on Aristotle (notably works of Ibn Rushd and Maimonides) Faith and Reason united From Toledo, through Provence, to… th by German painter Ludwig Seitz Palermo, Sicily – 13 Century – Under the rule of Roger of Sicily (Norman (1844–1908) ruler) th William of Moerbeke (Dutch cleric): greatest translator of the 13 century, and (possibly) ‘colleague’ of Thomas Aquinas. B. Greek Philosophy in the Christian monotheistic world: Boethius to scholasticism Boethius: (c. 475 – c. 526) philosopher, poet, politician – best known for his work Consolation of Philosophy, written as a dialogue between Boethius and 'Lady Philosophy', addressing issues ranging from the nature and essence of God, to evil, and ethics; translated Aristotle’s works on logic into Latin, and wrote commentaries on said works. John Scotus Eriugena (c. 815 – c. 877) Irish philosopher of the early monastic period; translated into Latin the works of pseudo-Dionysius, developed a Christian Neoplatonic world view. Anselm (c. 1033 – 1109) Archbishop of Canterbury from 1093 to 1109; best known for his “ontological argument” for the existence of God in chapter two of the Proslogion (translated into English: Discourse on the Existence of God); referred to by many as one of the founders of scholasticism.
    [Show full text]
  • PHIL246. 01 Philosophy of Language
    PHIL246. 01 Philosophy of Language David Miguel Gray [email protected] Synopsis: The course will look at central issues in the philosophy of language and how philosophy of language can help us understand linguistic discourse in a variety of domains. In particular, we will look at how philosophers have attempted to explain notions such as communication, meaning, reference, and truth and how this helps us understand more applied issues concerning political discourse. Goals The first goal is to develop your understanding of central issues in the philosophy of language. This involves developing an understanding of reference, truth, meaning, semantics, speech acts, and related concepts. The second goal is to improve your skills at philosophical argumentation and writing. Grading 50% of your grade will come from a midterm (20%) and a final exam (30%). The midterm will be on March 2nd in class and the final will be on May 3rd at 3pm. 30% of your grade will come from two 3-4 page papers (weighted evenly). Your first paper will be due on February 15th and your second paper will be due on April 23rd at the beginning of class. Papers will be graded on the grounds of ability to clearly explain the material you are writing about and original argumentation. Original argumentation will be evaluated in terms of its existence (is there any?) and plausibility (how well does it stand up to criticism?). I encourage you to take risks within reason. Don’t think you can come up with a new theory of reference in 2-3 pages, but do try to critique arguments, and propose solutions to smaller problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Nominalism-20K2vml.Pdf
    NOMINALISM Zoltán Gendler Szabó The Sage School of Philosophy Cornell University 218 Goldwin Smith Hall Ithaca, NY 14853-3201 e-mail: [email protected] tel.: 607.272.6824 forthcoming in Michael Loux and Dean Zimmerman eds., Oxford Handbook of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Draft of May 22, 2001 0. Introduction 1. The nominalist thesis 1.1. Are there… 1.2. … abstract… 1.3. …entities? 2. How to be a nominalist 2.1. “Speak with the vulgar …” 2.2. “…think with the learned” 3. Arguments for nominalism 3.1. Intelligibility, physicalism, and economy 3.2. Causal isolation 4. Arguments against nominalism 4.1. Indispensability 4.2. The Context Principle 5. A middle way? 0. Introduction Are there numbers? What about directions, sets, shapes, animal species, properties, relations, propositions, linguistic expressions, meanings, concepts, rights, values, or any other abstract entities? There are two sorts of answers to such questions: straight ones and oblique ones. The straight answers are typically introduced by the expression “of course”, as in “Of course there are, otherwise how could sentences like ‘2+2=4’ and ‘There is something Napoleon and Alexander have in common’ be true?” and “Of course 1 there aren’t, for how could we even know or speak of things that are causally inert?” The oblique answers are usually headed by the locution “well, you know”, as in “Well, you know that really depends on whether you take this to be an internal or external question” and “Well, you know that actually depends on whether you mean ‘exist’ in a thick or thin sense.” Analytic philosophers tend to feel a strong inclination towards the clear-cut.
    [Show full text]
  • WITTGENSTEINIAN QUIETISM by David Michael Finkelstein BA
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by D-Scholarship@Pitt WITTGENSTEINIAN QUIETISM by David Michael Finkelstein BA, Indiana University, 1995 MA, University of Pittsburgh, 2000 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Arts and Sciences in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh 2006 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES This dissertation was presented by David M. Finkelstein It was defended on November 7, 2005 and approved by David H. Finkelstein, Associate Professor, University of Chicago Department of Philosophy Nicholas Rescher, University Professor, Department of Philosophy Kieran Setiya, Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy Dissertation Director: John McDowell, University Professor, Department of Philosophy ii Copyright © by David M. Finkelstein 2006 iii WITTGENSTEINIAN QUIETISM David M. Finkelstein, PhD University of Pittsburgh, 2006 One can’t help but be struck by the range of incompatible positions that Wittgenstein’s philosophy, his rule-following considerations in particular, have been taken to support. For instance, according to one very popular interpretation of the rule-following considerations, Wittgenstein proves that claims about the meanings of words aren’t objectively true. On another interpretation, Wittgenstein shows that discourse about meaning, though without foundation, is as capable of robust truth as any. Still others argue that the Wittgenstein of the Investigations was neither a realist nor an antirealist with respect to discourse about meaning. On the contrary, according to proponents of this last interpretation, Wittgenstein rejected as “nonsense” both the questions that the rule-following considerations seem to pose and the answers that realists and antirealists have tried to give to these questions.
    [Show full text]