David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):167 - 181 (2012)
Predicates of taste, such as ?fun? and ?tasty?, have received considerable attention in recent debates between contextualists and relativists, with considerations involving disagreement playing a central role. Considerations involving disagreement have been taken to present a problem for contextualist treatments of predicates of taste. My goal is to argue that considerations involving disagreement do not undermine contextualism. To the extent that relativism was supposed to be motivated by contextualists being unable to deal with disagreement, this motivation is lacking. The argument against contextualism rests on a too simple and narrow conception of disagreement that turns out to be problematic once we consider a wider range of cases. If we reject the assumptions about disagreement that the argument rests on, it no longer poses a threat to contextualism
|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
Joseph Almog, John Perry, Howard K. Wettstein & David Kaplan (eds.) (1989). Themes From Kaplan. Oxford University Press, USA.
Simon Blackburn (1998/2000). Ruling Passions. Oxford University Press.
Simon Blackburn (1984). Spreading the Word. Clarendon Press.
Herman Cappelen & John Hawthorne (2009). Relativism and Monadic Truth. Oxford University Press.
James Dreier (1999). Transforming Expressivism. Noûs 33 (4):558-572.
Citations of this work BETA
Delia Belleri (2014). Disagreement and Dispute. Philosophia 42 (2):289-307.
James Andow (2014). Intuitions, Disagreement and Referential Pluralism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 5 (2):223-239.
Michele Palmira (2013). A Puzzle About the Agnostic Response to Peer Disagreement. Philosophia 41 (4):1253-1261.
Similar books and articles
Robin McKenna (2012). Epistemic Contextualism, Epistemic Relativism and Disagreement. Philosophical Writings.
Isidora Stojanovic (2007). Talking About Taste: Disagreement, Implicit Arguments, and Relative Truth. [REVIEW] Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):691-706.
Carl Baker (2012). Indexical Contextualism and the Challenges From Disagreement. Philosophical Studies 157 (1):107-123.
Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes (2014). Disagreement Without Error. Erkenntnis 79 (1):143-154.
Ragnar Francén (2010). No Deep Disagreement for New Relativists. Philosophical Studies 151 (1):19--37.
John MacFarlane (2007). Relativism and Disagreement. Philosophical Studies 132 (1):17-31.
Jacob Ross & Mark Schroeder (2013). Reversibility or Disagreement. Mind 122 (485):43-84.
Karl Schafer (2011). Faultless Disagreement and Aesthetic Realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):265-286.
John K. Davis (2010). An Alternative to Relativism. Philosophical Topics 38 (2):17-37.
Tamina Stephenson (2007). Judge Dependence, Epistemic Modals, and Predicates of Personal Taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4):487--525.
Peter Lasersohn (2005). Context Dependence, Disagreement, and Predicates of Personal Taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 28 (6):643--686.
Teresa Marques (2014). Doxastic Disagreement. Erkenntnis 79 (1):121-142.
James Dreier (2009). Relativism (and Expressivism) and the Problem of Disagreement. Philosophical Perspectives 23 (1):79-110.
Stojanovic (2011). When (True) Disagreement Gives Out. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (32):183-195.
Added to index2011-03-18
Total downloads86 ( #13,646 of 1,096,597 )
Recent downloads (6 months)10 ( #16,723 of 1,096,597 )
How can I increase my downloads?