David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
It is sometimes claimed (e.g., by Sider (2001a,b); Holton (2003); Stalnaker (2004); Williams (2007); Weatherson (2003, 2010)) that a theory of predicate meaning that assigns a central role to naturalness is either (a) Lewisian, (b) true, or (c) both. The theory in question is rarely developed in particularly great detail, but the rough intuitive idea is that the meaning of a predicate is the most natural property that is more-or-less consistent with the usage of the predicate. The point of this note is to investigate whether a version of this idea could be true, and whether it could be properly attributed to Lewis. I’m going to mostly focus on the second question, but I think in such a way that light is shed on the ﬁrst question. To anticipate the answer a little, I’m going to say that whether the use plus naturalness theory is plausibly attributed to Lewis (and is plausibly true) depends on what we want a theory of (predicate) meaning to do. Here are two very distinct tasks we could be engaged in. First, we could be investigating the metaphysics of meaning, and so be interested in how it is that a pattern of animal noises can come to have any kind of content at all. Second, we could be investigating the meaning of some particular term, where substantive claims about the meanings of other terms are presupposed in our inquiry. Call the ﬁrst project metasemantics, and the second project applied semantics. I’m going to conclude that use plus naturalness is a plausible way to approach applied semantics. But it isn’t a great way to approach metasemantics. The problem is that once we crunch through the details, it’s impossible to disentangle a notion of “use” such that naturalness can be added to it to get a theory of meaning. Before we can get very far on any of these inquiries, we need to say a bit about what we mean by ‘naturalness’. Naturalness plays a lot of distinctive roles for Lewis. Some of these broadly metaphysical roles. These roles are the primary focus of (Lewis, 1983a)..
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Brian Weatherson (2013). The Role of Naturalness in Lewis's Theory of Meaning. Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 1 (10).
Theodore Sider (1993). Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication. Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Dan Marshall (2012). Analyses of Intrinsicality in Terms of Naturalness. Philosophy Compass 7 (8):531-542.
Helena Siipi (2008). Dimensions of Naturalness. Ethics and the Environment 13 (1):pp. 71-103.
Theodore Sider (1996). Naturalness and Arbitrariness. Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3):283 - 301.
Helena Siipi (2004). Naturalness in Biological Conservation. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
Theodore Sider (1995). Sparseness, Immanence, and Naturalness. Noûs 29 (3):360-377.
Ben Ridder (2007). An Exploration of the Value of Naturalness and Wild Nature. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):195-213.
Ghislain Guigon (2014). Overall Similarity, Natural Properties, and Paraphrases. Philosophical Studies 167 (2):387-399.
P. F. Haperen, B. Gremmen & J. Jacobs (2012). Reconstruction of the Ethical Debate on Naturalness in Discussions About Plant-Biotechnology. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812.
Rae Langton & David Lewis (2001). Marshall and Parsons on 'Intrinsic'. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 63 (2):353-355.
Douglas Edwards (2013). Naturalness, Representation and the Metaphysics of Truth. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):384-401.
Paul Horwich (1995). Meaning, Use and Truth: On Whether a Use-Theory of Meaning is Precluded by the Requirement That Whatever Constitutes the Meaning of a Predicate Be Capable of Determining the Set of Things of Which the Predicate is True and to Which It Ought to Be Applied. Mind 104 (414):355-368.
Peter Menzies & Huw Price (2009). Is Semantics in the Plan? In David Braddon-Mitchell & Robert Nola (eds.), Conceptual Analysis and Philosophical Naturalism. MIT Press 159--82.
Added to index2011-04-25
Total downloads106 ( #16,634 of 1,700,257 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #41,170 of 1,700,257 )
How can I increase my downloads?