Philosophia 40 (1):41-53 (2012)
|Abstract||We investigate the relations among Brandom’s three dimensions of semantic inferential articulation, namely, incompatibility entailments, committive consequences, and permissive consequences. In his unpublished manuscript “Conceptual Content and Discursive Practice” Brandom argues that (1) incompatibility entailment implies committive consequence, and that (2) committive consequence in turn implies permissive consequence. We criticize this hierarchy both on internal and external grounds. Firstly, we prove that, using Brandom’s own definitions, the reverse of (1) also holds, and that the reverse of (2) may hold (but the proof relies on substantive assumptions). This suggests that there are no three different notions of inference emerging from Brandom’s definitions, but at most two, and perhaps even just one. Secondly, this result puts into question the connections between the three inferential relations and the familiar notions of deduction and induction|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John MacFarlane (2010). Pragmatism and Inferentialism. In Bernhard Weiss & Jeremy Wanderer (eds.), Reading Brandom: On Making It Explici.
Catherine Legg (2008). Making It Explicit and Clear: From "Strong" to "Hyper-" Inferentialism in Brandom and Peirce. Metaphilosophy 39 (1):105–123.
Gabor Forrai (2009). Brandom on Two Problems of Conceptual Role Semantics. In Barbara Merker (ed.), Vertehen nach Heidegger und Brandom.
Lionel Shapiro (2004). Brandom on the Normativity of Meaning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):141-60.
Tom Rockmore (2002). Brandom, Hegel and Inferentialism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 10 (4):429 – 447.
John MacFarlane (2008). Brandom's Demarcation of Logic. Philosophical Topics 36 (2):55-62.
Jaroslav Peregrin (2012). What is Inferentialism? In L. Gurova (ed.), Inference, Consequence and Meaning (Perspectives on Inferentialism). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Mark McCullagh (2005). Motivating Inferentialism. Southwest Philosophy Review 21 (1):77-84.
Benedikt Paul Göcke, Martin Pleitz & Hanno von Wulfen (2008). How to Kripke Brandom's Notion of Necessity. In Bernd Prien & David P. Schweikard (eds.), Robert Brandom. Analytic Pragmatist. ontos.
Dongho Choi (2008). Inferentialism, compositionality and the thickness of meaning. Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:335-344.
Giacomo Turbanti (2011). Modality in Brandom's Incompatibility Semantics. In María Inés Crespo, Dimitris Gakis & Galit Weidman-Sassoon (eds.), Proceedings of the Amsterdam Graduate Conference - Truth, Meaning, and Normativity. ILLC Publications.
Italo Testa (2012). Reconstruction and Pragmatist Metaphysics. On Brandom’s Understanding of Rationality. Verifiche (1-3):175-201.
Joseph Margolis (2007). Present Doldrums, Pleasant Prospects: Philosophy Early in the New Century. Philosophy and Social Criticism 33 (1):15-34.
Mark McCullagh (2005). Inferentialism and Singular Reference. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (2):183-220.
Jason A. Springs (2009). "Dismantling the Master's House": Freedom as Ethical Practice in Brandom and Foucault. Journal of Religious Ethics 37 (3):419-448.
Added to index2011-02-13
Total downloads31 ( #39,385 of 549,196 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,418 of 549,196 )
How can I increase my downloads?