David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophy 63 (20):627-637 (1966)
The view that analytic propositions are those which are true in virtue of rules of use is basically correct. But there are many kinds of rules of use, and rules of some of these kinds do not generate truth. There is nothing like a grammatical analytic, though grammatical rules are rules of use. So, this rules-of-use view falls short of being an explanatory account. My problem is to find what it is that is special about those rules of use which do generate truth. I shall argue that they are distinguished from others by their purpose rather than their content. Given their special purpose, one can explain how they generate truth. It will follow that linguistic regularities, considered apart from the purposes of those who use language, fail to provide a basis for understanding analyticity. On my account of it, analyticity turns out to be a less important characteristic of propositions than necessity. This is be- cause necessity, unlike analyticity, has its roots, not just in a contemporary system of usage, but in a wide family of systems of belief and usage. My efforts to deflate the philosophical value of the analytic will be summed up in the conclusion that analytic propositions can be contingent. I think this conclusion is behind the feeling that the propositions of logic and arithmetic are not merely analytic. For, if they were merely analytic, that is, true only in virtue of transitory conventions, then they would be contingent. Justice can be done to this feeling by the view that they are both analytic and necessary.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Gillian Kay Russell (2004). Analyticity, Meaning and Paradox. Dissertation, Princeton University
Wlodek Rabinowicz (2010). Analyticity and Possible-World Semantics. Erkenntnis 72 (3):295 - 314.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2006). Analyticity Again1. In Michael Devitt & Richard Hanley (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell Pub.. 19--114.
Gregory Lavers (2012). On the Quinean-Analyticity of Mathematical Propositions. Philosophical Studies 159 (2):299-319.
Timothy Williamson (2006). Conceptual Truth. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 80 (1):1–41.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (2003). Should We Trust Our Intuitions? Deflationary Accounts of the Analytic Data. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 103 (3):299-323.
Cory Juhl (2009). Analyticity. Routledge.
Verena Mayer (2003). Implicit Thoughts: Quine, Frege and Kant on Analytic Propositions. Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):61-90.
Paul Artin Boghossian (1996). Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs 30 (3):360-391.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads34 ( #57,931 of 1,413,259 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #94,880 of 1,413,259 )
How can I increase my downloads?