What does talk of meaning mean? All thinking consists in natural happenings in the brain. Talk of meaning though, has resisted interpretation in terms of. Meaning and Normativity. Allan Gibbard*. In the past dozen years, phrases like ” the normativity of meanin have swept into the philosophy of language. Meaning and Normativity, by AllanGibbard. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , xiv + pp. ISBN ‐0‐19‐‐4 hb £

Author: Vikasa Doulabar
Country: Bolivia
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Life
Published (Last): 22 July 2012
Pages: 40
PDF File Size: 6.3 Mb
ePub File Size: 16.74 Mb
ISBN: 767-7-57626-768-6
Downloads: 1962
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Arajora

What does it mean to say that Pierre’s sentence ‘Les chiens aboient’ is synonymous with my present sentence ‘Dogs bark’?

In French, “La niege est blanche” means that snow is white. The Normativity Thesis Gibbard introduces his main thesis by reminding us of the following passage from Kripke’s famous book about Wittgenstein: Choose your country or region Close.

What is it for sentences that belong to different languages to be acceptable under the same supposition? The second argument begins with the observation that ought-statements invariably follow from statements about meaning. Teemu Toppinen – – Ethics 4: What does talk of meaning mean?

Meaning and Normativity – Oxford Scholarship

This new book integrates his expressivism for normative language with a theory of how the meaning of meaning could be normative. Consider the following entailment: The Objects of Belief Appendix 2: If an agent ought to accept a sentence, in the intended sense, is this a matter of what she ought to do in the light of the information that she has available to her, or is it a matter of what she ought allna do in the light of all the facts, whether or not she has any way of knowing them?


The book draws, motivates, and sketches an analysis of these concepts in terms of oughts, which in turn are explained through expressivism. Of course, this by no means shows that Gibbard is wrong, but it does indicate that he has more work to do. Even if this were so, meanibg would still in a sense be true that I ought not to embrace it.

Gibbard embraces this responsibility with his characteristic energy and commitment to depth of treatment. Central devices for the project are drawn from Horwich but are taken normative; these include treating meaning through deflation and synonymy.

In view of these relationships, an account of the concept of meaning must be accompanied by plausible accounts of the concepts of analyticity and synonymy. Rather, the entailments are due in part to hidden background assumptions that are explicitly normative. Why does this support the normativity of meaning?

The Normativity of Meaning.

Suppose that an evil demon would change his mind about wiping out the human race if I would just embrace a contradiction. Derek Baker – – Normatiity 70 1: Naturalism I will wind up with a short inquiry into the relationships between Gibbard’s theory of meaning and naturalistic theories.


It then goes on to claim that the best explanation for the entailments is that ascriptions of meaning are themselves normative in character. Classical, Early, and Medieval Prose and Writers: Gibbare various points he broadens this claim to apply to the representational contents of concepts and propositional attitudes.


All thinking consists in natural happenings in the brain. Bibliographic Information Gibbardd publication date: Hamid Vahid – – Erkenntnis 69 3: But this is not the proper account of the relation, which is normativenot descriptive.

To be sure, it is normally imprudent to accept contradictions. It is wonderfully stimulating, opening up vast new territories for investigation. To believe this claim is to be in a state of planning.

Oxford University Press, Gibbard disagrees, maintaining that factual considerations fail to settle the question. Adam Morton – – Canadian Journal of Meankng 44 1: Indeed, towards the end of the Preface pp. But I have some inclination to suppose that it actually abbreviates the following more complicated argument: