Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Studies 155 (1):1 - 21 (2011)
|Abstract||The purpose of this paper is to look at the problem of rule-following—notably discussed by Kripke (Wittgenstein on rules and private language, 1982) and Wittgenstein (Philosophical investigations, 1953)—from the perspective of the study of generics. Generics are sentences that express generalizations that tolerate exceptions. I first suggest that meaning ascriptions be viewed as habitual sentences, which are a sub-set of generics. I then seek a proper semantic analysis for habitually construed meaning sentences. The quantificational approach is rejected, due to its persistent difficulties. Instead, a cognitive approach is adopted, where psychological considerations of meaning attributors play a crucial role. This account is then compared with the picture of meaning offered by Kripke and Wittgenstein, respectively. I show how this fresh way of conceiving of meaning sentences respects some of their insights while avoiding some of the drawbacks, and serves to improve the framework in which the current debate and inquiry about rule-following are conducted|
|Keywords||Generics Rule-following Kripke Habitual sentences Skeptical argument Skeptical solution|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
John A. Humphrey (1996). Kripke's Wittgenstein and the Impossibility of Private Language: The Same Old Story? Journal of Philosophical Research 21 (January):197-207.
Ariel Cohen (2004). Generics and Mental Representations. Linguistics and Philosophy 27 (5):529-556.
Kathrin Koslicki (1999). Genericity and Logical Form. Mind and Language 14 (4):441–467.
Adam M. Croom (2010). Wittgenstein, Kripke, and the Rule Following Paradox. Dialogue 52 (3):103-109.
Carl Ginet (1992). The Dispositionalist Solution to Wittgenstein's Problem About Understanding a Rule: Answering Kripke's Objection. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 17 (1):53-73.
Peter Pagin (2002). Rule-Following, Compositionality and the Normativity of Meaning. In D. Prawitz (ed.), Meaning and Interpretation. Konferenser.
Andrei Cimpian, Amanda C. Brandone & Susan A. Gelman (2010). Generic Statements Require Little Evidence for Acceptance but Have Powerful Implications. Cognitive Science 34 (8):1452-1482.
Added to index2010-05-15
Total downloads126 ( #4,935 of 739,352 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,186 of 739,352 )
How can I increase my downloads?