Canadian Journal of Philosophy 38 (2):pp. 289-299 (2008)
|Abstract||In Naming and Necessity, Saul Kripke employs a handy philosophical trick: he invents the term ‘schmidentity’ to argue indirectly for his favored account of identity. Kripke says in a footnote that he wishes someday “to elaborate on the utility of this device”. In this paper, I ﬁrst take up a general elaboration on his behalf. I then apply the trick to support an attractive but somewhat unorthodox picture of conceptual analysis—one according to which it is a process of forming intentions for word use. This picture can recover a naturalistically respectable notion of the philosopher’s task, and can help resolve current debates that turn on the place of conceptual analysis.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Stephen Laurence & Eric Margolis (2003). Concepts and Conceptual Analysis. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 67 (2):253-282.
Per Sandin (2006). Has Psychology Debunked Conceptual Analysis? Metaphilosophy 37 (1):26–33.
Justin Sytsma (2010). The Proper Province of Philosophy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 1 (3):427-445.
William Ramsey (1992). Prototypes and Conceptual Analysis. Topoi 11 (1):59-70.
Josep Macià (1998). Does Naming and Necessity Refute Descriptivism? Theoria 13 (3):445-476.
David Plunkett (2011). Expressivism, Representation, and the Nature of Conceptual Analysis. Philosophical Studies 156 (1):15-31.
Crawford L. Elder (2003). Kripkean Externalism Versus Conceptual Analysis. Facta Philosophica 5 (1):75-86.
Saul A. Kripke (1982). Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language. Harvard University Press.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads24 ( #51,605 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)11 ( #6,012 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?