International Journal of Philosophical Studies 14 (3):325 – 335 (2006)
|Abstract||This paper advances a general argument, inspired by some remarks of Davidson, to show that appeal to meanings as entities in the theory of meaning is neither necessary nor sufficient for carrying out the tasks of the theory of meaning. The crucial point is that appeal to meaning as entities fails to provide us with an understanding of any expression of a language except insofar as we pick it out with an expression we understand which we tacitly recognize to be a translation of the term whose meaning we want to illuminate by the appeal to assigning to it a meaning. The meaning drops out as irrelevant: the work is done, and can only be done, by matching terms already understood with terms they translate.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Alberto Voltolini (1995). Is Meaning Without Actually Exisring Reference Naturalizable? Grazer Philosophische Studien 50:397-414.
H. G. Callaway (2008). Sense and Mode of Presentation. In H. G. Callaway (ed.), Meaning without Analyticity.
Daniel Whiting (2010). Particular and General: Wittgenstein, Linguistic Rules, and Context. In Daniel Whiting (ed.), The Later Wittgenstein on Language. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wayne A. Davis (2003). Meaning, Expression, and Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Ned Block (1995). Ruritania Revisited. Philosophical Issues 6:171-187.
C. J. L. Talmage (1994). Literal Meaning, Conventional Meaning and First Meaning. Erkenntnis 40 (2):213 - 225.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads41 ( #32,659 of 722,874 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #36,757 of 722,874 )
How can I increase my downloads?