David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (3):677-691 (2007)
We take it that Brandom’s sense of the geography is that our way of proceeding is more or less the first and his is more or less the second. But we think this way of describing the situation is both unclear and misleading, and we want to have this out right at the start. Our problem is that we don’t know what “you start with” means either in formulations like “you start with the content of words and proceed to the content of sentences” or in formulations like “you start with the content of sentences and you proceed to the content of words.” Brandom’s official view seems to be that he’s talking about explanatory priorities (see the preceding quote); but we think that can’t really be what he has in mind, and we can’t find any alternative interpretation that seems plausible. Speaking just for ourselves, we’re inclined towards a relatively pragmatic view of explanation; what explanation we should “start with” depends, inter alia, on what it’s an explanation of and whom it’s an explanation for. But, in any case, we would have thought that explanatory priority is of more than heuristic interest only if it reflects a priority of some other kind: ontological, semantical, psychological, or whatever. In talking about what one “starts with”, Brandom must be claiming more than
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(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
Nat Hansen (2012). J. L. Austin and Literal Meaning. European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):n/a-n/a.
Endre Begby (2013). Semantic Minimalism and the “Miracle of Communication”. Philosophical Studies 165 (3):957-973.
Similar books and articles
Kevin Scharp (2003). Communication and Content: Circumstances and Consequences of the Habermas-Brandom Debate. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):43 – 61.
Steven Hendley (2005). From the Second to the Third Person and Back Again. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:169-188.
Bernd Prien (2011). Robert Brandom on Communication, Reference, and Objectivity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):433-458.
Kevin Scharp (2005). Scorekeeping in a Defective Language Game. Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):203-226.
Lionel Shapiro (2004). Brandom on the Normativity of Meaning. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 68 (1):141-60.
Carlo Penco (2005). Keeping Track of Individuals: Brandom's Analysis of Kripke's Puzzle and the Content of Belief. Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):177-201.
Gabor Forrai (2009). Brandom on Two Problems of Conceptual Role Semantics. In Barbara Merker (ed.), Vertehen nach Heidegger und Brandom.
Ernie Lepore (2007). Brandom Beleaguered. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (3):677-691.
Anandi Hattiangadi (2003). Making It Implicit: Brandom on Rule-Following. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):419-31.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads40 ( #46,220 of 1,102,070 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #91,808 of 1,102,070 )
How can I increase my downloads?