Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 35 (2):246-256 (1974)
|Abstract||We commonly hear it said that a work of art must be understood “on its own terms,” and that phrase is used in other contexts as well; people, especially people very different from ourselves, are said to have to be understood on their own terms. But what is the meaning of the expression “on its/their own terms?” Note that we do not say of every possible object of understanding that it must be understood on its own terms. The statement, “Chemistry must be understood on its own terms,” sounds odd. The “on its own terms” appears to lack point. It invites the retort, “Good grief, on what other terms had you expected to understand it?!” We seem to be brought to this: where the exhortation “understand it on its own terms” is to be used in reference to some object, there must be some reasonable way of understanding that object alternative to understanding it on its own terms. We may ask the child its own childish reasons why it keeps clobbering little sister (“She took my dolly!”), or we may account for its actions in terms the child does not comprehend (“sibling rivalry”). We may on occasion even do the same sort of thing with adults, perhaps giving a reason out of Freud for something done by a person who never heard of Freud or psychoanalysis. But naturally, distinctions between “their terms” and “our terms” become of extreme importance when we attempt to understand the peoples of other cultures. In such cases there literally are different systems of terms, that is, different languages, within which we must make sense of activities.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Michael Devitt (2005). Rigid Application. Philosophical Studies 125 (2):139--165.
Peter Pagin (2000). Sensation Terms. Dialectica 54 (3):177-99.
Ernest Lepore & Kirk Ludwig (2006). Ontology in the Theory of Meaning. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):325 – 335.
Ben S. Cordry (2004). Necessity and Rigidly Designating Kind Terms. Philosophical Studies 119 (3):243-264.
Richard Gray (2006). Natural Phenomenon Terms. Analysis 66 (290):141–148.
Stephen P. Schwartz (2002). Kinds, General Terms, and Rigidity: A Reply to LaPorte. Philosophical Studies 109 (3):265 - 277.
John Roberts (2001). Introduction. Business Ethics Quarterly 11 (1):67-71.
Corine Besson (2010). Rigidity, Natural Kind Terms, and Metasemantics. In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads4 ( #178,517 of 549,007 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,261 of 549,007 )
How can I increase my downloads?