Graduate studies at Western
Disputatio 1 (19):1-17 (2005)
I argue that a concept is applied correctly when it is applied to the kind
of things it is the concept of. Correctness as successful kind-tracking is
fulfilling an externally and naturalistically individuated standard. And the normative aspect of concept-application so characterized depends on the relational (non-individualistic) feature of conceptual content. I defend this view against two objections. The first is that norms should provide justifications for action, and the second involves a version of the thesis of indeterminacy of reference.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Ásta Sveinsdóttir (2008). Essentiality Conferred. Philosophical Studies 140 (1):135 - 148.
Janet Folina (1995). Putnam, Realism and Truth. Synthese 103 (2):141--52.
Stephen Finlay (2010). Normativity, Necessity and Tense: A Recipe for Homebaked Normativity. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Vol. 5. Oxford University Press.
John Divers (1996). Supervenience for Operators. Synthese 106 (1):103-12.
Colin Allen (1998). Animal Concepts. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (1):66-66.
Hannah Ginsborg (2006). Aesthetic Judgment and Perceptual Normativity. Inquiry 49 (5):403 – 437.
John Post (2003). Method, Madness, and Normativity. Philo: A Journal of Philosophy 6 (2):235-248.
Krist Vaesen (2006). How Norms in Technology Ought to Be Interpreted. Techne 10 (1):117-133.
Added to index2010-01-27
Total downloads15 ( #86,013 of 739,346 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,538 of 739,346 )
How can I increase my downloads?