David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Oxford University Press (2008)
The analytic/synthetic distinction looks simple. It is a distinction between two different kinds of sentence. Synthetic sentences are true in part because of the way the world is, and in part because of what they mean. Analytic sentences - like all bachelors are unmarried and triangles have three sides - are different. They are true in virtue of meaning, so no matter what the world is like, as long as the sentence means what it does, it will be true. This distinction seems powerful because analytic sentences seem to be knowable in a special way. One can know that all bachelors are unmarried, for example, just by thinking about what it means. But many twentieth-century philosophers, with Quine in the lead, argued that there were no analytic sentences, that the idea of analyticity didn't even make sense, and that the analytic/synthetic distinction was therefore an illusion. Others couldn't see how there could fail to be a distinction, however ingenious the arguments of Quine and his supporters. But since the heyday of the debate, things have changed in the philosophy of language. Tools have been refined, confusions cleared up, and most significantly, many philosophers now accept a view of language - semantic externalism - on which it is possible to see how the distinction could fail. One might be tempted to think that ultimately the distinction has fallen for reasons other than those proposed in the original debate. In Truth in Virtue of Meaning, Gillian Russell argues that it hasn't. Using the tools of contemporary philosophy of language, she outlines a view of analytic sentences which is compatible with semantic externalism and defends that view against the old Quinean arguments. She then goes on to draw out the surprising epistemological consequences of her approach.
|Keywords||Truth Meaning (Philosophy Grammar, Comparative and general Sentences Knowledge, Theory of|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Buy the book||$31.02 used (59% off) $50.00 new (38% off) $69.86 direct from Amazon (13% off) Amazon page|
|Call number||BD171.R8175 2008|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Wang Lu (2008). Theories of Meaning. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (1):83-98.
Kari Middleton (2007). The Inconsistency of Deflationary Truth and Davidsonian Meaning. The Proceedings of the Twenty-First World Congress of Philosophy 6:99-103.
Panu Raatikainen (2008). On Rules of Inference and the Meanings of Logical Constants. Analysis 68 (300):282-287.
Jerry Fodor & Ernie Lepore (2006). Analyticity Again1. In Michael Devitt & Richard Hanley (eds.), The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell Pub.. 19--114.
Leonard Linsky (1970). Analytic/Synthetic and Semantic Theory. Synthese 21 (3-4):439 - 448.
Richard Swinburne (1984). Analytic/Synthetic. American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1):31 - 42.
A. W. Moore (1997). The Underdetermination/Indeterminacy Distinction and the Analytic/Synthetic Distinction. Erkenntnis 46 (1):5-32.
Paul Artin Boghossian (1996). Analyticity Reconsidered. Noûs 30 (3):360-391.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads21 ( #67,347 of 1,004,482 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #39,123 of 1,004,482 )
How can I increase my downloads?