Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

47 results

Page 1 of 3

  • 6 - Kripke and Wittgenstein on Rules and Meaning

  • Edited by Claudine Verheggen, York University, Toronto
  • Book:
    Kripke's <i>Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language</i> at 40
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    08 February 2024, pp 107-123

  • Summary

    I read Kripke’s sketches of our ordinary view of meaning in his book Wittgenstein on Rules and Private Language as attempts to highlight the features of meaning that enable us to draw the distinction between what seems right and what is right. I argue that Kripke thinks the best way to clarify these features of meaning is to describe metasemantic conditions that a speaker’s words must satisfy if the speaker is to be warranted in asserting a sentence in which the words occur. Although the view of meaning I attribute to Kripke is initially compelling, I argue that it rests on a subtle yet fundamental misunderstanding of the distinction between what seems right and what is right.

  • Chapter 7 - Reading Quine’s Claim that Carnap’s Term “Semantical Rule” Is Meaningless

  • from Part III - Carnap and Quine on Logic, Language, and Translation
  • Edited by Sean Morris, Metropolitan State University of Denver
  • Book:
    The Philosophical Project of Carnap and Quine
    Published online:
    18 February 2023
    Print publication:
    23 February 2023, pp 135-153

  • Summary

    Many informed readers of Carnap (and Quine) have taken Quine’s objections to Carnap’s account of analyticity in terms of semantical rules to have failed. This paper counters this, arguing that Quine actually saw himself as applying Carnap’s own philosophical standards more strictly than Carnap himself did. Quine was, as he later reported, “just being more carnapian than Carnap.” This paper offers a careful analysis of Section 4 of “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” which shows Carnap conflating two senses of “semantical rule.” Although the first is clear, Quine sees it as being of no use in defining analyticity. The second, though integral to Carnap’s method of defining analyticity, Quine shows to be left unexplained by Carnap’s definitions.

  • 2 - Analyticity

  • from Section One - Language, Mind, Epistemology
  • Edited by Kelly Becker, University of New Mexico, Iain D. Thomson, University of New Mexico
  • Book:
    The Cambridge History of Philosophy, 1945–2015
    Published online:
    08 November 2019
    Print publication:
    21 November 2019, pp 32-48

  • Summary

    W. V. Quine’s criticisms of Rudolf Carnap’s efforts to draw a boundary between analytic and synthetic sentences shook mid-twentieth-century Anglo-American philosophy to its foundations, leaving logical empiricism in ruins and sparking the development of radically new ways of theorizing that continue to shape philosophy today. Despite decades of discussion, however, neither Carnap’s analytic–synthetic distinction nor Quine’s criticisms of it are well understood. My central goals here are to summarize and clarify them, evaluate influential objections to Quine’s criticisms, survey related work on analyticity and apriority by Hilary Putnam, Saul Kripke, David Chalmers, Paul Boghossian, and Gillian Russell, among others, and briefly discuss whether meaning is determinate in ways that recent explications of analyticity require.

Carnap, Quine, and Putnam on Methods of Inquiry
  • Gary Ebbs
  • Published online:
    22 June 2017
    Print publication:
    07 June 2017
  • Carnap, Quine, and Putnam held that in our pursuit of truth we can do no better than to start in the middle, relying on already-established beliefs and inferences and applying our best methods for re-evaluating particular beliefs and inferences and arriving at new ones. In this collection of essays, Gary Ebbs interprets these thinkers' methodological views in the light of their own philosophical commitments, and in the process refutes some widespread misunderstandings of their views, reveals the real strengths of their arguments, and exposes a number of problems that they face. To solve these problems, in many of the essays Ebbs also develops new philosophical approaches, including new theories of logical truth, language use, reference and truth, truth by convention, realism, trans-theoretical terms, agreement and disagreement, radical belief revision, and contextually a priori statements. His essays will be valuable for a wide range of readers in analytic philosophy.

Page 1 of 3