DOCSLIB.ORG

John Mcdowell - Wikipedia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
John Mcdowell - Wikipedia 2019/7/25 John McDowell - Wikipedia John McDowell John Henry McDowell (born 7 March 1942) is a South African John Henry McDowell philosopher, formerly a fellow of University College, Oxford and now University Professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Although he has written extensively on metaphysics, epistemology, ancient philosophy, and meta-ethics, McDowell's most influential work has been in the philosophy of mind and philosophy of language. McDowell was one of three recipients of the 2010 Andrew W. Mellon Foundation's Distinguished Achievement Award,[6] and is a Fellow of both the American Academy of Arts & Sciences and the British Academy. McDowell has, throughout his career, understood philosophy to be "therapeutic" and thereby to "leave everything as it is", which he understands to be a form of philosophical quietism (although he does not consider himself to be a "quietist"). The philosophical quietist believes that John McDowell in Paris, October philosophy cannot make any explanatory comment about how, for example, 2007 thought and talk relate to the world but can, by offering re-descriptions of [1] philosophically problematic cases, return the confused philosopher to a Born 7 March 1942 state of intellectual quietude. However, in defending this quietistic Boksburg, South perspective McDowell has engaged with the work of leading Africa contemporaries in such a way as to therapeutically dissolve what he takes to Alma mater University College of be philosophical error, while developing original and distinctive theses Rhodesia and about language, mind and value. In each case, he has tried to resist the Nyasaland (as issued influence of what he regards as a misguided, reductive form of by University of philosophical naturalism that dominates the work of his contemporaries, London) particularly in North America. New College, Oxford Era 20th-century philosophy Contents Region Western philosophy Life and career School Analytic philosophy Philosophical work Pittsburgh School [2][3] Early work Foundationalism Perceptual Value theory conceptualism[4] Later work: Mind and World (1994) Direct realism[5][3] Influences Main Metaphysics, Publications interests epistemology, logic, Books philosophy of Selected articles language, philosophy References of mathematics, philosophy of mind, Further reading ethics External links Notable Perceptual ideas conceptualism[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDowell 1/9 2019/7/25 John McDowell - Wikipedia Life and career Influences Influenced McDowell was born in Boksburg, South Africa and completed a B.A. at the University College of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In 1963, he moved to New College, Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, where he earned another B.A. in 1965 and an M.A. in 1969.[7] He taught at University College, Oxford from 1966 until 1986, when he joined the faculty at the University of Pittsburgh, where he is now a University Professor. He has also been a visiting professor at many universities, including Harvard University, University of Michigan, and University of California, Los Angeles. McDowell was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1983[8] and a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1992.[9] In 2010 he received the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Distinguished Achievement Award in the Humanities.[10] McDowell delivered the John Locke Lectures in Philosophy at Oxford University in 1991 (these became his book Mind and World.)[11] He has also given the Woodbridge Lectures at Columbia University in 1997[12] and the Howison Lectures in Philosophy at the University of California at Berkeley in 2006. [13] He received an honorary degree from the University of Chicago in 2008.[14] Philosophical work Early work McDowell's earliest published work was in ancient philosophy, most notably including a translation of and commentary on Plato's Theaetetus. In the 1970s he was active in the Davidsonian project of providing a semantic theory for natural language, co-editing (with Gareth Evans) a volume of essays entitled Truth and Meaning. McDowell edited and published Evans's influential posthumous book The Varieties of Reference (1982). In his early work, McDowell was very much involved both with the development of the Davidsonian semantic programme and with the internecine dispute between those who take the core of a theory that can play the role of a theory of meaning to involve the grasp of truth conditions, and those, such as Michael Dummett, who argued that linguistic understanding must, at its core, involve the grasp of assertion conditions. If, Dummett argued, the core of a theory that is going to do duty for a theory of a meaning is supposed to represent a speaker's understanding, then that understanding must be something of which a speaker can manifest a grasp. McDowell argued, against this Dummettian view and its development by such contemporaries as Crispin Wright, both that this claim did not, as Dummett supposed, represent a Wittgensteinian requirement on a theory of meaning and that it rested on a suspect asymmetry between the evidence for the expressions of mind in the speech of others and the thoughts so expressed. This particular argument reflects McDowell's wider commitment to the idea that, when we understand others, we do so from "inside" our own practices: Wright and Dummett are treated as pushing the claims of explanation too far and as continuing Willard Van Orman Quine's project of understanding linguistic behaviour from an "external" perspective. In these early exchanges and in the parallel debate over the proper understanding of Wittgenstein's remarks on rule- following, some of McDowell's characteristic intellectual stances were formed: to borrow a Wittgensteinian expression, the defence of a realism without empiricism, an emphasis on the human limits of our aspiration to objectivity, the idea that meaning and mind can be directly manifested in the action, particularly linguistic action, of other people, and a distinctive disjunctive theory of perceptual experience. The latter is an account of perceptual experience, developed at the service of McDowell's realism, in which it is denied that the argument from illusion supports an indirect or representative theory of perception as that argument presupposes that there is a "highest common factor" shared by veridical and illusory (or, more accurately, delusive) experiences. (There is clearly a distinction between perceiving and acquiring a belief: one can see an "apparently bent" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_McDowell 2/9 2019/7/25 John McDowell - Wikipedia stick in the water but not believe that it is bent as one knows that one's experience is illusory. In illusions, you need not believe that things are as the illusory experiences represent them as being; in delusions, a person believes what their experience represents to them. So the argument from illusion is better described as an argument from delusion if it is to make its central point.) In the classic argument from illusion (delusion) you are asked to compare a case where you succeed in perceiving, say, a cat on a mat, to the case where a trick of light deceives you and form the belief that the cat is on the mat, when it is not. The proponent of the argument then says that the two states of mind in these contrasting cases share something important in common, and to characterise this we need to introduce an idea like that of "sense data." Acquaintance with such data is the "highest common factor" across the two cases. That seems to force us into a concession that our knowledge of the external world is indirect and mediated via such sense data. McDowell strongly resists this argument: he does not deny that there is something psychologically in common between the subject who really sees the cat and the one that fails to do so. But that psychological commonality has no bearing on the status of the judger's state of mind from the point of view of assessing whether she is in a position to acquire knowledge. In favourable conditions, experience can be such as to make manifest the presence of objects to observers – that is perceptual knowledge. When we succeed in knowing something by perceiving it, experience does not fall short of the fact known. But this just shows that a successful and a failed perceptual thought have nothing interesting in common from the point of view of appraising them as knowledge. In this claim that a veridical perception and a non-veridical perception share no highest common factor, a theme is visible which runs throughout McDowell's work, namely, a commitment to seeing thoughts as essentially individuable only in their social and physical environment, so called externalism about the mental. McDowell defends, in addition to a general externalism about the mental, a specific thesis about the understanding of demonstrative expressions as involving so-called "singular" or "Russellian" thoughts about particular objects that reflects the influence on his views of Gareth Evans. According to this view, if the putative object picked out by the demonstrative does not exist, then such an object dependent thought cannot exist – it is, in the most literal sense, not available to be thought. Value theory In parallel with the development of this work on mind and language, McDowell also made significant contributions to moral philosophy, specifically meta-ethical debates over the nature of moral reasons and moral objectivity. McDowell developed the view that has come to be known as secondary property realism, or sensibility or moral sense theory. The theory proceeds via the device of an ideally virtuous agent: such an agent has two connected capacities. She has the right concepts and the correct grasp of concepts to think about situations in which she finds herself by coming to moral beliefs. Secondly, for such a person such moral beliefs are automatically over-riding over other reasons she may have and in a particular way: they "silence" other reasons, as McDowell puts it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Skepticism, Metaphors and Vertigo : Wittgenstein and Cavell on The
    RicoGutschmidt, Dresden Skepticism, Metaphorsand Vertigo Wittgenstein and Cavell on the Human Condition Abstract: The relation of Wittgenstein’slaterphilosophytoskepticism seems to be ambiguous, since he rejects radical skepticism but also highlights the ground- lessness of our beliefs. In this paper,Iam going to discuss Wittgenstein’shinge propositions in this respect.Against the usual view,Iwill show that they do not function as acontextualist or foundationalist refutation of skepticism. Whatis more, they also do not confirm skepticism. In contrast,Iwill arguethat following Wittgenstein skepticism is neither false nor true, but still has apoint,which can be elucidated with Stanley Cavell’sconcept of a truth of skepticism. This concept roughly states that we can not know about the existenceofthe world and the others, but that we have to acknowledge them. With the help of Wittgenstein, Iamgoingtoclarify this position. The key idea is that the problem of skepticism can be understood as ametaphorical wayofpresentingthe finiteness of the human condition and thatvertiginous skeptical irritations lead to an adequate human self-understanding in this respect. Something is obscure with the statusofskepticism. What does it mean for the human to be confronted with unanswerable questions?Should he somehow deal with his incapability of answeringthem?Shouldn’thenonetheless try to find answers?Orare these questions senseless in the end, since they can not be answered anyhow?Inthe following,Iamgoing to discuss this obscure status of skepticism. In the first part of this paper,Iwill the deal with the ambiguous position of Wittgenstein’slater philosophytothe problem of skepticism, which seems neither to reject nor to confirm skepticism. This problem willbeelucidated by referringtoWittgenstein’sconcept of the hinge propositions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexington Books
    NEW FROM LEXINGTON BOOKS WHITEHEAD AND THE PITTSBURGH SCHOOL: PREEMPTING THE PROBLEM OF INTENTIONALITY By Lisa Landoe Hedrick “Whitehead and the Pittsburgh School: Preempting the Problem of Intentionality is an excellent addition to studies on the relationship between Whitehead and analytic philosophy in general. In particular, it shows how Whitehead’s critique of early trends in analytic thought is relevant to habits that impede progress in analytic thought today.”—Daniel A. Dombrowski, Seattle University “Hedrick makes good on her stated aim: to interpret Whitehead’s epistemology in a new way and to make her own original contribution. This is explosive philosophy!”—Robert Cummings Neville, Boston University “Hedrick is destined to become a leading author on the interpretation of the thought of Whitehead. In this extraordinary debut book, she examines Whitehead’s relevance to recent developments in analytic philosophy epitomized in the ‘Pittsburgh School’ of Robert Brandom and John McDowell and contextualized against the philosophy of Donald Davidson and Richard Rorty. Not since the pioneering work of the late George W. Shields has a Whitehead scholar tackled the critical relation of Whitehead to analytic philosophy. Hedrick does it here in a thoroughly up-to-date and decisive way with a brilliant focus on the meaning of intentionality and the need to make sense of the relationship between mind and world.” —Nancy Frankenberry, Dartmouth College “With a technically precise focus on contemporary epistemology and the problems of normativity and intentionality, Hedrick demonstrates that the TABLE OF CONTENTS sustained critique of prevailing habits of thought within mainstream analytic Acknowledgments philosophy implicitly shares much in common with a similar but long- Introduction forgotten critique of Bertrand Russell’s sensedata theory, launched a century Chapter 1: Reading Plato, Aristotle, and Kant ago by Russell’s erstwhile collaborator, Whitehead.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • Reason and Nature Lecture and Colloquium in Munster¨ 1999
    JOHN MCDOWELL: Reason and Nature Lecture and Colloquium in Munster¨ 1999 Edited by Marcus Willaschek LIT – Verlag Munster¨ Preface John McDowell is one of the most influential philosophers writing to- day. His work, ranging widely from interpretations of Plato and Aris- totle to Davidsonian semantics, from ethics to epistemology and the philosophy of mind, has set the agenda for many recent philosophical debates. In recent years, McDowell’s views have been hotly discussed among students and faculty in Munster,¨ too. Therefore, we were very glad when McDowell agreed to give the third M¨unsteraner Vorlesungen zur Philosophie in 1999. On May 5, McDowell gave a public lecture; on the following two days, he participated in a colloquium where students and faculty from Munster¨ presented brief papers on his philosophy. McDowell listened carefully and responded to questions and criticisms. This volume contains McDowell’s lecture, revised versions of the col- loquium papers and McDowell’s written responses to them. I should like to thank John McDowell for coming to lecture in Munster,¨ for participating in the colloquium, and for putting his re- sponses in writing. Discussing his views with him has been stimulation and pleasure for all of us. Next, I want to thank the participants in the colloquium who worked hard to come up with interesting and chal- lenging presentations. Further, thanks are due to Karsten Wantia and Florian Wessels for putting much effort and time in type-setting and designing this volume. And finally, I want ot thank the Ministerium fur¨ Schule und Weiterbildung, Wissenschaft und Forschung in Nordrhein- Westfalen for funding the 1999 M¨unsteraner Vorlesungen zur Philosophie.
    [Show full text]
  • Attuning Poetry and Philosophy
    The old quarrel Article Accepted Version De Gaynesford, M. (2020) The old quarrel. Forum For Philosophy. Available at http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/93065/ It is advisable to refer to the publisher’s version if you intend to cite from the work. See Guidance on citing . Published version at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/theforum/the-old-quarrel/ All outputs in CentAUR are protected by Intellectual Property Rights law, including copyright law. Copyright and IPR is retained by the creators or other copyright holders. Terms and conditions for use of this material are defined in the End User Agreement . www.reading.ac.uk/centaur CentAUR Central Archive at the University of Reading Reading’s research outputs online ATTUNING POETRY AND PHILOSOPHY Maximilian de Gaynesford on the old quarrel between poetry and philosophy Analytic philosophers may find nothing untoward about the following snippet of autobiography: I stopped writing in the fashion of a poet who puts down what sounds good to him and who needn’t defend his lines (either they resonate with a reader or they don’t). Instead, I tried to ask myself, when writing: precisely what does this sentence contribute to the developing exposition or argument, and is it true? You become analytical when you practise that sort of (frequently painful) self-criticism. The author captures what drew many of us towards this way of doing philosophy, what keeps us at it. Quote this to a wider audience however, and you may find people react with a mixture of recognition and horror. Recognition, because the author captures exactly what keeps them away from analytic philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 the Disjunctive Conception of Experience As Material for A
    The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument John McDowell University of Pittsburgh 1. In Individuals1 and The Bounds of Sense,2 P. F. Strawson envisaged transcendental arguments as responses to certain sorts of scepticism. An argument of the sort Strawson proposed was to establish a general claim about the world, a claim supposedly brought into doubt by sceptical reflections. Such an argument was to work by showing that unless things were as they were said to be in the claim that the argument purported to establish, it would not be possible for our thought or experience to have certain characteristics, not regarded as questionable even by someone who urges sceptical doubts. So the argument’s conclusion was to be displayed as the answer to a “How possible?” question. That has a Kantian ring, and the feature of such arguments that the formulation fits is the warrant for calling them “transcendental”. Barry Stroud responded to Strawson on the following lines.3 Perhaps we can see our way to supposing that if our thought or experience is to have certain characteristics it does have (for instance that experience purports to be of a world of objects independent of us), we must conceive the world in certain ways (for instance as containing objects that continue to exist even while we are not perceiving them). But it is quite another matter to suggest that by reflecting about how it is possible that our thought and experience are as they are, we could establish conclusions not just about how we must conceive the world but about how the world must be.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • An Unrealistic Account of Moral Reasons
    An Unrealistic Account of Moral Reasons PRINCIPIA LXVI (2019): 5–33 PL‑ISSN 0867‑5392 DOI 10.4467/20843887PI.19.001.11634 Susana Cadilha An Unrealistic Account of Moral Reasons1 Nierealistyczne ujęcie racji moralnych Summary In this paper I will analyze John McDowell’s broad account of prac‑ tical rationality and moral reasons, which he displays mainly in his articles “Are Moral Requirements Hypothetical Imperatives?” (1978) and “Might There Be External Reasons?” (1995). My main aim is to argue that from a philosophical perspective, no less than from an empirical one, McDowell’s account of practical rationality is not a realistic one. From a philosophical point of view, I will argue that his intellectualist account is not convincing; and if we consider his virtue‑ethical ideal of practical rationality in light of the model of human cognition, we also realize that moral behavior is not immune to cognitive biases and does not always flow from robust traits of character like virtues. At the same time, this puts at stake his strong thesis of moral autonomy – the idea that with the ‘onset of reason’ moral beings are no longer determined by ‘first nature’ features. Keywords: John McDowell, practical rationality, moral reasons, vir‑ tue ethics, second nature Streszczenie W niniejszym artykule analizuję szerokie ujęcie praktycznej racjo‑ nalności i racji moralnych Johna McDowella, które przedstawia głównie w swoich artykułach „Are Moral Requirements Hypotheti‑ cal Imperatives?” (1978) i „Might There Be External Reasons?” (1995). Moim głównym celem jest pokazanie, że z perspektywy fi‑ 1 This paper is a substantially extended and improved version of my previous paper “John McDowell on Practical Rationality – Is He (Really) Talking about Us?” (2018).
    [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]
  • 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]