Talking about taste: Disagreement, implicit arguments, and relative truth
Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (6):691-706 (2007)
| Abstract | In this paper, I take issue with an idea that has emerged from recent relativist proposals, and, in particular, from Lasersohn (Linguistics and Philosophy 28: 643–686, 2005), according to which the correct semantics for taste predicates must use contents that are functions of a judge parameter (in addition to a possible world parameter) rather than implicit arguments lexically associated with such predicates. I argue that the relativist account and the contextualist implicit argument-account are, from the viewpoint of semantics, not much more than notational variants of one another. In other words, given any sentence containing a taste predicate, and given any assignment of values to the relevant parameters, the two accounts predict the same truth value and are, in that sense, equivalent. I also look at possible reasons for preferring one account over the other. The phenomenon of “faultless disagreement” (cf. Kölbel, Truth without objectivity, 2002) is often believed to be one such reason. I argue, against Kölbel and Lasersohn, that disagreement is never faultless: either the two parties genuinely disagree, hence if the one is right then the other is wrong, or the two parties are both right, but their apparent disagreement boils down to a misunderstanding. What is more, even if there were faultless disagreement, I argue that relativism would fail to account for it. The upshot of my paper, then, is to show that there is not much disagreement between a contextualist account that models the judge parameter as an implicit argument to the taste predicate, and a relativist account that models it as a parameter of the circumstances of evaluation. The choice between the two accounts, at least when talking about taste, is thus, to a large extent, a matter of taste. | |||||||||
| Keywords | philpapers: relativism about truth | |||||||||
| Categories | ||||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
Download options| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 5,701 |
| External links |
 |
| Through your library | Configure |
Similar books and articlesIsidora Stojanovic (2012). Domain-Sensitivity. Synthese 184 (2):137-155.
Michael Rieppel (2011). Stoic Disagreement and Belief Retention. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (2):243-262.
Ragnar Francén (2010). No Deep Disagreement for New Relativists. Philosophical Studies 151:19--37.
Friederike Moltmann (2010). Relative Truth and the First Person. Philosophical Studies 150 (2):187-220..
José Juan Moreso (2009). Legal Positivism and Legal Disagreements. Ratio Juris 22 (1):62-73.
Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes (2011). Varieties of Disagreement and Predicates of Taste. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):167 - 181.
Peter Lasersohn (2009). Relative Truth, Speaker Commitment, and Control of Implicit Arguments. Synthese 166 (2):359 - 374.
Peter Lasersohn (2011). Context, Relevant Parts and (Lack of) Disagreement Over Taste. Philosophical Studies 156 (3):433-439.
Karl Schafer (2011). Faultless Disagreement and Aesthetic Realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 82 (2):265-286.
Tamina Stephenson (2007). Judge Dependence, Epistemic Modals, and Predicates of Personal Taste. Linguistics and Philosophy 30 (4):487--525.
Analytics
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2009-01-28Total downloads69 ( #12,623 of 549,122 )Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #63,361 of 549,122 )How can I increase my downloads? |
My notes
Discussion
