David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Pragmatics and Cognition 13 (1):203-226 (2005)
One common criticism of deflationism is that it does not have the resources to explain defective discourse (e.g., vagueness, referential indeterminacy, confusion, etc.). This problem is especially pressing for someone like Robert Brandom, who not only endorses deflationist accounts of truth, reference, and predication, but also refuses to use representational relations to explain content and propositional attitudes. To address this problem, I suggest that Brandom should explain defective discourse in terms of what it is to treat some portion of discourse as defective. To illustrate this strategy, I present an extension of his theory of content and use it to provide an explanation of confusion. The result is a theory of confusion based on Joseph Camp’s recent treatment. The extension of Brandom’s theory of content involves additions to his account of scorekeeping that allow members of a discursive practice to accept different standards of inferential correctness.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|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
Sam Alxatib & Francis Jeffry Pelletier (2011). The Psychology of Vagueness: Borderline Cases and Contradictions. Mind and Language 26 (3):287-326.
Axel Gelfert (2011). Expertise, Argumentation, and the End of Inquiry. Argumentation 25 (3):297-312.
Similar books and articles
Kevin Scharp (forthcoming). Brandom on Communication. In Jason Hannon & Robert Rutland (eds.), Philosophical Profiles in the Theory of Communication. McGill-Queen's University Press
Mark Lance (2001). The Logical Structure of Linguistic Commitment III Brandomian Scorekeeping and Incompatibility. Journal of Philosophical Logic 30 (5):439-464.
Dale Jacquette (1982). Meinong's Theory of Defective Objects. Grazer Philosophische Studien 15:1-19.
Kevin Scharp (2003). Communication and Content: Circumstances and Consequences of the Habermas-Brandom Debate. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 11 (1):43 – 61.
Chris Heathwood (2005). The Problem of Defective Desires. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (4):487 – 504.
Bernd Prien (2010). Robert Brandom on Communication, Reference, and Objectivity. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):433-458.
C. R. McRae (1926). Some Testing of Physically Defective and of Mentally Defective Children. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 4 (1):27 – 35.
Giacomo Turbanti (2010). Belief Reports: Defaults, Intentions and Scorekeeping. In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Ontos Verlag 363.
David Lewis (1979). Scorekeeping in a Language Game. Journal of Philosophical Logic 8 (1):339--359.
Gabor Forrai (2009). Brandom on Two Problems of Conceptual Role Semantics. In Barbara Merker (ed.), Vertehen nach Heidegger und Brandom.
Vojko Strahovnik (2005). Meinongian Scorekeeping. In Alfred Schramm (ed.), Meinong Studien. De Gruyter 309-330.
Cristina Lafont (2008). Meaning and Interpretation: Can Brandomian Scorekeepers Be Gadamerian Hermeneuts? Philosophy Compass 3 (1):17-29.
Mark McCullagh (2005). Motivating Inferentialism. Southwest Philosophy Review 21 (1):77-84.
John MacFarlane (2007). The Logic of Confusion. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (3):700-708.
Added to index2010-10-31
Total downloads51 ( #83,359 of 1,906,955 )
Recent downloads (6 months)16 ( #40,510 of 1,906,955 )
How can I increase my downloads?