Graduate studies at Western
Philosophical Explorations 4 (1):17 – 30 (2001)
|Abstract||In this paper I discern two concepts of meaning: meaning O - which is assigned by us on the basis of our commonsense conception in order to constitute our own daily reality - and meaning I, which we assign when we interpret reality scientifically. Authors who contend that the commonsense conception is nothing but a kind of scientific theory, do not see that the two fields of life have their own concept of meaning. Commonsense and science are not separate from each other, however: though both have their own practices, the way we interpret reality scientifically presupposes our commonsense conception.|
|Keywords||meaning commonsense folk psychology|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Radu J. Bogdan (1993). The Architectural Nonchalance of Commonsense Psychology. Mind and Language 8 (2):189-205.
Katrina L. Sifferd (2006). In Defense of the Use of Commonsense Psychology in the Criminal Law. Law and Philosophy 25 (6):571 - 612.
Bryce Huebner (2010). Commonsense Concepts of Phenomenal Consciousness: Does Anyone Care About Functional Zombies? [REVIEW] Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (1):133-155.
Andrew Chrucky, The Manifest Image ≠ the Commonsense Conceptual Framework (in the Philosophy of Wilfrid Sellars).
Howard Sankey (forthcoming). Science, Common Sense and Reality. In J. E. Ford (ed.), The Ontic Return: The Current Epochal Shift from Meaning to Being. Palgrave Macmillan.
Henk de bij Weg (2001). The Commonsense Conception and its Relation to Scientific Theory. Philosophical Explorations 1 (1):17-30.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads6 ( #154,770 of 723,836 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 723,836 )
How can I increase my downloads?