Although Brandom is critical of some features of narrowly conceived classical pragmatism, at the same time he explicitly embraces a version of pragmatism, both in his overall philosophical outlook, and in his philosophy of language. Brandom’s distinctive theoretical approach is based on what he calls rationalist pragmatism, which is a version of fundamental pragmatism. Within the philosophy of language it takes the form of semantic pragmatism. The paper briefly discusses Brandomian version of fundamental pragmatism and its semantic underpinning, and subsequently (...) formulates a basic dilemma it encounters there. (shrink)

One of the main differences between Quine’s and Davidson’s theories of knowledge and mind lies in their accounts of the content of perception and the way in which it contributes to our knowledge of the external world. Both thinkers are very sensitive to these differences and it has been the subject of discussion between them in recent publications. To put it very roughly, Quine holds firmly to the position that although we finally manage to get veridical knowledge of the external (...) world, the content of our perceptions are just the triggerings of our sense receptors that give us reliable clues about the objects and happenings in our environment. Davidson considers this view to be a naturalized successor of an older defective empiricism which should be abandoned. In its place he proposes an externalist theory of perceptual content, according to which content is fully determined or constituted by the objects and events in the external world. This move, among other things, bypasses many of the troubles that Quine’s approach faces and gives a solid ground for our intersubjective communication. In other words, if the central concern of Quine’s epistemological project is epistemology naturalized, so the central concern of Davidson’s corresponding project is epistemology externalised. (shrink)

This book is an expanded version of the John Locke lectures delivered at Oxford in 1995 by one of the leading Australian philosophers. Its principal aim is to provide a defense of conceptual analysis against the familiar attacks of W. V. Quine and his followers, and to show that it is an indispensable method of philosophical inquiry. Being suspicious of abstract metaphilosophical declarations, Jackson builds his case for conceptual analysis upon detailed discussions of particular metaphysical and ethical doctrines, such as (...) physicalism, the primary quality view of color, and cognitivism and descriptivism concerning moral discourse. Hence the book is as much an original metaphilosophical study, as an important contribution to analytical metaphysics and ethics. (shrink)

This is a new major and systematic monograph on the realism debate, written by a very skillful and sophisticated defender of anti-realism. The realism debate is conceived here as a primarily semantic controversy concerning the possibility of forming propositions or sentences about the world whose truth or falsity might be unknowable to us. Realists of various persuasions take it to be perfectly possible, while nonrealists of all sorts deny this. Tennant distinguishes two basic forms of nonrealism in his book: irrealism (...) and antirealism. According to semantic irrealism, there are no such entities as propositions, or objective and determinate meanings for sentences to possess. Semantic antirealists generally do not agree with such a radical conclusion. They argue for the objectivity and determinacy of meaning, although at the same time they insist that both meaning and truth attributable to propositions or sentences has to be epistemically constrained, that is, grasping a meaning has to be manifestable and truth has to be in principle knowable. While developing in greater detail his own version of antirealism that respects those two constraints, Tennant combines the knowability requirement with the claim that truth need not be bivalent, which in turn leads him to replace classical logic based on bivalence by a nonclassical constructive logic, namely, intuitionistic relevant logic. Tennant attempts to show that this logic has much wider application than one might suppose. It suffices not only for mathematics but also adequately captures the basic inferential practices of empirical sciences. It would be hard to overestimate the significance of that attempt, since if successful it undermines the charge that anti-realism is a doctrine that cannot really be extended beyond the domain of mathematical discourse. The general strategy taken in this respect by Tennant is not, as has been common so far, to strengthen the notion of empirical verification or confirmation of a sentence in such a way as to make it a close analogue of the notion of mathematical proof. “Rather, one should attend to the main feature of natural scientific theorizing to which Popper drew our attention: our scientific theories can at best be falsified, not verified”. In other words, in the case of empirical discourse the perfect analogue of the antirealist notion of constructive provability is the notion of constructive falsifiability. (shrink)

Although analytic philosophy and pragmatism are two distinctive philosophical movements, they are in various ways related. The paper is an attempt to provide a selective historical account of these relationships. The following five episodes are presented and discussed: the criticism of pragmatism by G.E. Moore and B. Russell, pragmatic ideas in the philosophy of F.P. Ramsey and conceptual pragmatism of C.I. Lewis; real and apparent pragmatic tendencies in the philosophies of L. Wittgenstein and W.V. Quine; the return to pragmatism initiated (...) by R. Rorty and H. Putnam; analytic pragmatism of R.B. Brandom, M. Williams, and H. Price. The picture that emerges from this historical account is that of unruly coexistence and inspiration. Key words ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY, PRAGMATISM. (shrink)

It is often assumed that any attempt to undermine the so-called correspondence theory of truth is motivated by the conviction that truth is an idea which should be more or less forgotten in our postmodernist period. However, this is not always the case. One can believe that truth is one of our indispensable concepts but at the same time argue that the correspondence theory of truth is not a proper and illuminating theory of that concept. This position is reasonable, since (...) - as it has been shown (e.g. by Huw Price and Michael Dummett) - without the notion of truth one would not be able to provide a coherent and satisfactory account of our discursive practice and linguistic meaning. Moreover, as it has been recently argued by David Lewis, the correspondence theory is not a stable account of that concept, and it faces the following dilemma: either (putting aside some minor and irrelevant differences) it turns into a minimalist or redundancy theory of some sort, or it becomes a (mostly) metaphysical theory about various kinds of things which make our statements true. Defenders of the correspondence theory have made some efforts to meet the challenge posed by Lewis, but those efforts do not seem successful. Hence we should perhaps not longer consider the correspondence theory as a major and clearly specifiable contender in the debate about truth, and thus significantly reshape it. (shrink)

Epistemic conceptions of truth, for which truth is defined in terms of justifiability or assertibility in properly idealized conditions, are very often considered as unavoidably linked with relativism. The paper argues that such a link is not unavoidable. The reason is that there are accounts of justification that do not have relativistic consequences, and therefore one may propose an epistemic conception of truth that does not have those consequences either.

Author: Szubka Tadeusz Title: MAIN VARIETIES OF ANALYTIC METAPHYSICS (Główne typy metafizyki analitycznej) Source: Filo-Sofija year: 2011, vol:.15, number: 2011/4, pages: 849-864 Keywords: ANALYTIC METAPHYSICS, G.E. MOORE, B. RUSSELL, P.F. STRAWSON, D. DAVIDSON, M. DUMMETT, W.V. QUINE, D.M. ARMSTRONG, D. LEWIS. Discipline: PHILOSOPHY Language: POLISH Document type: ARTICLE Publication order reference (Primary author’s office address): E-mail: www:In a widespread general view about analytic philosophy it is often emphasized the supposed animosity or mistrust of that movement towards metaphysics. That opinion is (...) in many respects one-sided and incorrect. First, one cannot find that animosity towards metaphysics in the works of G.E. Moore and B. Russell, the founders of modern analytic philosophy. Of course, they criticized the speculative, Hegelian metaphysics of their idealistic predecessors, but they did it in order to defend metaphysics of a different kind, more careful, empirical, and realist one. Moreover, even if it is to some extent true that over a few decades analytic philosophy was dominated by the attitude of mistrust towards more theoretical and comprehensive metaphysical investigations, it should be stressed that that attitude has almost completely disappeared in the last fifty years. Metaphysics has again regained the status of central and vigorously pursued philosophical discipline. One of the main originators of that metaphysical turn in contemporary analytic philosophy was Sir P.F. Strawson, the Oxford philosopher, who in 1959 forcefully articulated the idea of descriptive metaphysics. A somewhat similar way of doing metaphysics was later developed in the writings of D. Davidson, M. Dummett, and – in certain respects – H. Putnam. One may say that all those thinkers have attempted to identify the basic structure of reality by describing and elucidating the basic structural features of our thought and talk. Since in such a method of doing metaphysics one can discern some characteristic marks of Kantian transcendental arguments, there is a point to call it analytic-transcendental metaphysics. In a completely different way metaphysics has been pursued by those analytic thinkers who are under heavy influence of the conception of philosophy put forward by W.V. Quine. For Quine philosophy, including metaphysics, is continuous with science, and, to be more precise, constitutes the theoretical end of science. Among many followers of that kind of metaphysics, that may be called analytic-naturalistic one, there are D.M. Armstrong and D. Lewis. The paper presents those two varieties of analytic metaphysics, and succinctly discusses their main difficulties. Subsequently, it mentions those examples of contemporary analytic metaphysics that, for one reason or another, do not belong to either of those two varieties. The paper ends with a brief appendix discussing the most recent revival of metaphysics within the analytic movement and a critical response to it from the deflationary point of view. (shrink)

This book contains essays published originally in the last three decades and one paper that appears in print for the first time. They deal with metaphysical, epistemological, and semantical problems concerning knowledge, mind, and reality. The book is mainly focused on “the various kinds of dependencies that might hold between mind and reality” and substantially unified by “consistent commitment to realism”. The essays are arranged thematically into three groups. The first concerns the notion of knowledge in general, the nature of (...) a priori knowledge, and of modality. McGinn favors a version of the reliabilist account of knowledge, for which a belief counts as knowledge if it has been produced by a method leading to true beliefs in a significant number of relevant cases. He proposes to define a priori knowledge as noncausal knowledge and defends a radically nonreductive conception of modality as a mode of property instantiation. The second part contains essays relevant to the theory of mental content, including “The Structure of Content” which, as McGinn suggests, is probably the most widely cited paper he has published. It also includes, among others, a less widely known, but very interesting paper on reference, proposing a plausible alternative to both descriptive and causal theories of reference. The third part contains essays that mainly try to undermine Dummettian semantic antirealism, and argue for realism, irrespective of its epistemological costs. It concludes with two recent essays on color: one defends supervenience of color properties upon dispositional properties of objects, and the other explores consequences of the neutrality of color experience with respect to the ontological nature of color. (shrink)

The paper gives an account of the origins of the term \"analytic philosophy\". The term appeared in the paper Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe by Ernest Nagel, published in 1936, and was subsequently employed by G. Bergmann, H. H. Price, and especially A. Pap. It has both descriptive and normative uses. In its descriptive use it refers to a certain movement in contemporary philosophy. In its normative use it stands for a proper way of doing philosophy, that (...) is the way which provides us with carefully justified conclusions in clear language. Unfortunately, these two different uses are often conflated. (shrink)

This important and timely collection is the result of a conference on self-knowledge held at the University of St. Andrews in 1995. A number of papers included in it focus on the epistemology of self-knowledge. In particular, they try to provide a plausible explanation of what makes knowledge of our own mental states immediate and authoritative. Crispin Wright deals with that problem in the context of Wittgensteinian philosophy of mind. John McDowell replies to Wright’s essay by providing a different picture (...) of Wittgenstein’s later views on mind and philosophy. Christopher Peacocke considers, in his contribution, conscious attitudes, especially the possession condition of the concept of belief, and argues that a conscious belief gives rise to the relevant second-order belief in a way that is neither inferential, nor observational. Michael Martin responds by suggesting that Peacocke’s proposal applies only to conscious episodes of a certain kind. Most of the contributors to the collection are convinced that the observational model of self-knowledge is fatally flawed. Cynthia Macdonald undertakes to show that not everything is wrong with that model and its various criticisms can be effectively met. Elizabeth Fricker in her long essay offers a careful analysis of the distinction between two conceptions of selfknowledge: a special access account, according to which we have a unique privileged access to our own mental states, and a constitutive account holding that the self-ascription of a particular mental state is a necessary condition of being in that state. She finds that distinction, and the dichotomy based upon it, untenable. Akeel Bilgrami and Tyler Burge are concerned in their respective contributions with the role of self-knowledge in free, responsible agency, and in the practice of reasoning. They seem to suggest that in view of that role one should endorse a constitutive account of self-knowledge. The prevailing number of current theories of mental content accept a thesis of externalism to the effect that mental content is constituted and individuated not only by factors lying inside one’s head, or inside one’s subjective realm, but also and foremost by external and environmental factors. It seems, however, that the combination of externalism about mental content with our ordinary conception of self-knowledge leads to a certain tension and highly implausible consequences. Some philosophers, including Paul A. Boghossian, argue that the tension is genuine, and selfknowledge is simply incompatible with externalism. We have to claim this because otherwise we would have to agree on an apparently absurd extension of the domain of what can be known nonempirically or a priori. Other contributors are not convinced by Boghossian’s argument for incompatibilism. Brian McLaughlin and Michael Tye in their joint essay attempt to show that the argument does not apply to the most popular version of externalism. Martin Davies thinks the argument can be blocked by invoking principles limiting the transfer of epistemic warrant across known entailments, and Diana Raffman believes it is ultimately based upon equivocation. Moreover, as illustrated by Jim Edwards on an example of sense experience, one can accept externalism while modifying the extent of our self-knowledge in various ways. The last two contributions of the collection, by Barry C. Smith and James Higginbotham respectively, are concerned with knowledge of what we mean when we speak a language and its connections with self-knowledge in general. (shrink)

Obszerna antologia Logika i język z analitycznej filozofii języka, do której J. Pelc wybrał i przełożył teksty, była przez wiele lat wykorzystywana w nauczaniu i badaniach w Polsce. W udany sposób przedstawia niektóre dyskusje toczone w ramach filozofii analitycznej. Jednakże obok tekstów kluczowych, które weszły do kanonu tej tradycji, zawiera także prace marginalne i mało znaczące. Zaskakujące jest pominięcie przez Pelca kilku bardzo ważnych filozofów i ich dorobku, a podane we wstępie do antologii uzasadnienie tych braków jest niekompletne i mało (...) przekonujące. (shrink)

The British philosopher Michael Dummett (1925–2011) not only had a massive influence on the development of analytical philosophy within the philosophy of language, philosophy of mathematics, and metaphysics, but also contributed significantly to historical and metaphilosophical debates about the nature of this philosophical movement and its proper account. He proposed to define analytical philosophy as philosophy whose aim is the analysis of the structure of thought by way of the analysis of language. Hence, it is philosophy the gist of which (...) is the linguistic turn. A number of critics of this proposal (including Barry Smith, Peter Hylton, and Hans-Johann Glock) emphasised that Dummett’s proposal captures merely some features of this diversified and multifaceted philosophical tradition, and is far from being historically adequate. (shrink)

Sir Michael Dummett belongs to a small group of the greatest analytical philosophers of the second half of the 20th century, and presumably it would be no exaggeration to consider him the most prominent and influential British philosopher over the last three decades. He has published numerous articles, not only in the field of philosophy. However, a reader willing to learn his recent views is going to face some problems. Although Dummett’s most extended monograph — The Logical Basis of Metaphysics (...) — being a systematic exposition of his own views, was published relatively not so long ago, large parts of it, presented as The William James Lectures at the Harvard University, originally have even come from 1976. From this earlier material, the reader can hardly separate what Dummett has added when preparing this monograph to publication, at the end of the 1980s. (shrink)

The paper begins with an account of the emergence of analytic philosophy of language in the twentieth century in the context of the development of logic and the linguistic turn. Subsequently, it describes two examples of analytic philosophy of language in its heyday when the discipline was conceived as first philosophy. Finally, it provides, by way of conclusion, a succinct outline of the current state of philosophy of language, marked by modesty and fragmentation. It is claimed that even if one (...) retains optimism about the prospects of philosophy of language in the first century of the new millennium, it would be unreasonable to disagree with the opinion that the present-day philosophy of language is a highly specialized and diversified discipline and no longer so central for philosophical enterprise as it used to be. (shrink)