Verbal Disputes and Substantiveness

Erkenntnis (1):1-24 (2013)
Abstract
One way to challenge the substantiveness of a particular philosophical issue is to argue that those who debate the issue are engaged in a merely verbal dispute. For example, it has been maintained that the apparent disagreement over the mind/brain identity thesis is a merely verbal dispute, and thus that there is no substantive question of whether or not mental properties are identical to neurological properties. The goal of this paper is to help clarify the relationship between mere verbalness and substantiveness. I first argue that we should see mere verbalness as a certain kind of discourse defect that arises when the parties differ as to what each takes to be the immediate question under discussion. I then argue that mere verbalness, so understood, does not imply that the question either party is attempting to address is a non-substantive one. Even if it turns out that the parties to the mind/brain dispute are addressing subtly different questions, these might both be substantive questions to which their respective metaphysical views provide substantive answers. One reason it is tempting to reach deflationary conclusions from the charge of mere verbalness is that we fail to distinguish it from the claim that a sentence under dispute is, in a certain sense, indisputable. Another reason is that we fail to distinguish mere verbalness from a certain sort of indeterminacy. While indisputability and indeterminacy plausibly capture forms of nonsubstantiveness, I argue that mere verbalness is insufficient to establish either indisputability or indeterminacy
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA

    No citations found.

    Similar books and articles
    Gerald Marsh (2010). Is the Hirsch-Sider Dispute Merely Verbal? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 88 (3):459-469.
    Alan Sidelle (2007). The Method of Verbal Dispute. Philosophical Topics 35 (1/2):83-113.
    Karen Bennett (2009). Composition, Colocation, and Metaontology. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.
    David J. Chalmers (2011). Verbal Disputes. Philosophical Review 120 (4):515-566.
    Timothy Sundell (2011). Disagreements About Taste. Philosophical Studies 155 (2):267-288.
    Eli Hirsch (2005). Physical-Object Ontology, Verbal Disputes, and Common Sense. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70 (1):67–97.
    Stojanovic (2011). When (True) Disagreement Gives Out. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (32):183-195.
    William H. Hanson (1989). Two Kinds of Deviance. History and Philosophy of Logic 10 (1):15-28.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Added to index

    2012-09-05

    Total downloads

    34 ( #43,068 of 1,089,057 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    5 ( #20,075 of 1,089,057 )

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.