Synthese:1-14 (2018)

Authors
Genoveva Martí
ICREA And University Of Barcelona
Abstract
We explore two ways of distinguishing the semantic operation of kind terms. First, we focus on a distinction between terms with a flexible versus terms with an inflexible semantics. Flexibility depends on whether some changes in the domain of application are taken to be possible while being consistent with past usage and what is intuitively the same meaning. On the other hand we discuss terms whose mode of operation is tolerant, in that the cohabitation in the speakers’ community of more than one use or practice of use of the term in question is accepted. Those terms contrast with terms that operate in a strict way restricting severely the legitimacy of different uses that cut the domain of application in different ways. Among the latter we include terms with an ethical component and terms whose correct application involves high stakes. These distinctions are not new, since the phenomena that we identify as flexibility and tolerance have been observed, although in our view they have not been properly systematized and assessed. We argue that the two distinctions throw light on the bases of some disputes and on some legal disagreements.
Keywords Kinds  Kind terms  Legal disagreements
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1007/s11229-018-01898-9
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 54,410
External links

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

Natural Kinds and Conceptual Change.Joseph Laporte - 2005 - Philosophical Quarterly 55 (221):672-674.
Cheap Contextualism.Peter Ludlow - 2008 - Philosophical Issues 18 (1):104-129.
Predicate Meets Property.Mark Wilson - 1982 - Philosophical Review 91 (4):549-589.

View all 9 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Empty Natural Kind Terms and Dry Earth.Corine Besson - 2012 - Erkenntnis 76 (3):403-425.
Rigidity, Natural Kind Terms and Metasemantics.Corine Besson - 2010 - In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge. pp. 25--44.
Are Chemical Kind Terms Rigid Appliers?Michael Rubin - 2013 - Erkenntnis 78 (6):1303-1316.
Natural Phenomenon Terms.Richard Gray - 2006 - Analysis 66 (2):141–148.
Necessity and Rigidly Designating Kind Terms.Ben S. Cordry - 2004 - Philosophical Studies 119 (3):243-264.
Rigid Application.Michael Devitt - 2005 - Philosophical Studies 125 (2):139-165.
Are Natural Kind Terms Special?Åsa Wikforss - 2010 - In Helen Beebee & Nigel Sabbarton-Leary (eds.), The Semantics and Metaphysics of Natural Kinds. Routledge.
Color Terms and Semantic Externalism.Åsa Wikforss - 2012 - Croatian Journal of Philosophy 12 (3):399-420.
Putnam on the Meaning of Natural Kind Terms.Bernard Linsky - 1977 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 7 (4):819 - 828.
Thick Ethical Concepts.Pekka Väyrynen - 2016 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Rigid Kind Terms.Jussi Haukioja - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 39:55-61.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-09-03

Total views
15 ( #633,874 of 2,368,001 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #556,092 of 2,368,001 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes