Graduate studies at Western
Analysis 67 (294):133–140 (2007)
|Abstract||Meaning, according to a significant number of philosophers, is an intrinsically normative notion.1 For this reason, it is suggested, meaning is not conducive to a naturalistic explanation. In this paper, I shall not address whether this is indeed so. Nor shall I present arguments in support of the normativity thesis (see Glock 2005; Kripke 1982). Instead, I shall examine and respond to two forceful objections recently (and independently) raised against it by Boghossian (2005), Hattiangadi (2006) and Miller (2006). Although I shall argue that the objections are unsuccessful, they are worth attending to, not only because the normativity thesis is so widely accepted and is thought to have such ramifications but, most importantly, because doing so offers the opportunity to help clarify how it is to be understood.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Similar books and articles
Alan Millar (2002). The Normativity of Meaning. In Anthony O'Hear (ed.), Logic, Thought, and Language. Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Whiting (2009). On Epistemic Conceptions of Meaning: Use, Meaning and Normativity. European Journal of Philosophy 17 (3):416-434.
Adolf Rami (2005). Über Die Sogenannte Normativität der Bedeutung. Grazer Philosophische Studien 68 (1):81-117.
Martin Montminy (2005). Meaning Skepticism and Normativity. Journal of Philosophical Research 30:215-235.
Jakob Hohwy (2006). Internalized Meaning Factualism. Philosophia 34 (3):325-336..
Anandi Hattiangadi (2006). Is Meaning Normative? Mind and Language 21 (2):220-240.
Hannah Ginsborg (2011). Primitive Normativity and Skepticism About Rules. Journal of Philosophy 108 (5):227-254.
Andrei Buleandra (2008). Normativity and Correctness: A Reply to Hattiangadi. [REVIEW] Acta Analytica 23 (2):177-186.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads71 ( #14,720 of 739,354 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #17,166 of 739,354 )
How can I increase my downloads?