David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Wittgenstein’s rule-following argument indicates that linguistic understanding does not consist in knowing interpretations, whereas Kripkenstein’s version suggests that meaning cannot be metaphysically fixed by interpretations. In the present paper, rule-following considerations are used to suggest that certain ontological questions cannot be answered by interpretations. Specifically, if the aim is to specify the ontology of a language, an interpretation cannot answer what object an expression of L denotes, if the interpretations are themselves L-expressions. Briefly, that’s because the ontology of such interpretations, e.g., “ ‘Pollux’ denotes Pollux” or “ ‘Pollux’ denotes Beta Geminorum,” would naturally be in question as much as the expressions they interpret. So in order to settle the question of ontology, the interpretations themselves would need to be interpreted, and thus a regress. I conclude that knowing the answer to what ontology underlies L cannot be a matter of knowing interpretations. The paper ends with a quietist conclusion; the slogan is that empirical science is ontology enough, or rather, it is about all the ontology one should expect.
|Keywords||Sider, Theodore Metametaphysics Quine, Willard Van Orman Ontology|
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Peter Van Inwagen (1998). Meta-Ontology. Erkenntnis 48 (2/3):233 - 250.
Scott Soames (2009). Ontology, Analyticity, and Meaning : The Quine-Carnap Dispute. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press. 424--43.
Willard Van Orman Quine (1951). Ontology and Ideology. Philosophical Studies 2 (1):11--15.
Charles F. Kielkopf (1977). Quantifiers in Ontology. Studia Logica 36 (4):301-307.
Eli Hirsch (2010). Quantifier Variance and Realism: Essays in Metaontology. Oxford University Press.
Julian Dodd (2008). Musical Works: Ontology and Meta-Ontology. Philosophy Compass 3 (6):1113-1134.
Uriah Kriegel (2011). Two Defenses of Common-Sense Ontology. Dialectica 65 (2):177-204.
John Hawthorne (2009). Superficialism in Ontology. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press. 213--30.
Kanti Lal Das & Anirban Mukherjee (eds.) (2008). Language and Ontology. Northern Book Centre.
Kit Fine (2009). The Question of Ontology. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press. 157--177.
Roberto Poli (1993). Husserl's Conception of Formal Ontology. History and Philosophy of Logic 14 (1):1-14.
Francesco Berto (2013). Coincident Entities and Question-Begging Predicates: An Issue in Meta-Ontology. [REVIEW] Metaphysica 14 (1):1-15.
Darrin W. Belousek (2003). Non‐Seperability, Non‐Supervenience, and Quantum Ontology. Philosophy of Science 70 (4):791-811.
Barry Smith & Chris Welty (2002). Ontology: Towards a New Synthesis. In Formal Ontology in Information Systems. ACM Press.
Theodore Sider (2009). Ontological Realism. In David John Chalmers, David Manley & Ryan Wasserman (eds.), Metametaphysics: New Essays on the Foundations of Ontology. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2012-09-06
Total downloads80 ( #15,784 of 1,098,129 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #78,521 of 1,098,129 )
How can I increase my downloads?