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)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
The Role of Naturalness in Lewis's Theory of Meaning.Brian Weatherson - 2013 - Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 1 (10).
Naturalness, Intrinsicality, and Duplication.Theodore Sider - 1993 - Dissertation, University of Massachusetts
Analyses of Intrinsicality in Terms of Naturalness.Dan Marshall - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (8):531-542.
Naturalness in Biological Conservation.Helena Siipi - 2004 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (6):457-477.
An Exploration of the Value of Naturalness and Wild Nature.Ben Ridder - 2007 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2):195-213.
Overall Similarity, Natural Properties, and Paraphrases.Ghislain Guigon - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 167 (2):387-399.
Reconstruction of the Ethical Debate on Naturalness in Discussions About Plant-Biotechnology.P. F. Haperen, B. Gremmen & J. Jacobs - 2012 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 25 (6):797-812.
Naturalness, Representation, and the Metaphysics of Truth.Douglas Edwards - 2013 - European Journal of Philosophy 21 (3):384-401.
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.Paul Horwich - 1995 - Mind 104 (414):355-368.
Added to index2011-04-25
Total downloads136 ( #34,672 of 2,163,624 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,270 of 2,163,624 )
How can I increase my downloads?