|Interpretation: A) Making statements about other statements, whereby new vocabulary may be introduced. If no new vocabulary is introduced, new information can be obtained by changing the syntactic grouping.|
B) In logic, interpretation is the insertion of values (objects) instead of the constants or free variables.
_____________Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.
Books on Amazon
|K. Glüer, Davidson zur Einführung, 1993
Glüer II 28
Interpretation theory/Glüer: must not assume that their theorems were derived with the help of a translation (circle) - therefore DavidsonVsTarski: presupposing truth to explain meaning.
Glüer II 29/30
Definition interpretative/Glüer: is a theory if all T-equivalences to be obtained from the schema T are true. Because truth conditions are given in the recursion to the structure of the sentences -> Meaning holism: a sentence only has meaning in the context of the language - Thus the problem is "Snow is white iff grass is green excluded, because such a theory could not imply at the same time a true T-equivalence for the sentences "This is white" or "That is snow".
Glüer II 117/8
Interpretation/action/explanation/Davidson/Glüer: an action is only interpretable if it can be described as part of a rational structure - this also applies to speech action - therefore, actions are linked to propositional attitudes - each action is an interpreted action - N.B.: therefore it is no empirical question whether an acting person is rational - ((s) because it is presupposed) - An event that cannot be described in the language of the propositional attitudes is not an action - (because it is not interpretable).
Frank I 645
Mental states/proposition/self-attribution/external-ascription/Davidson: we have to start from sentences or utterances instead of propositions or meanings - otherwise, different types of sources are suggested - instead: relationships between actors and utterances - no different knowledge and no different criteria - solution : If someone knows that I think of a sentence as correct, he knows what I believe - it would be circular to explain the basic asymmetry by an asymmetry of certainty -> interpretation.
Interpretation/mental states/external-ascription/Davidson: also the speaker can problematize his sentences - he can also be wrong about the meaning of his words - he also needs the Tarski-theory - asymmetry: N.B.: the listener/interpreter cannot be sure that the Tarski-theory is the best method for external attribution. - The best thing the speaker can do is to be interpretable.
Graeser I 167
Interpretation/Davidson: utterances are verifiable, without the individual propositional attitudes of the speakers being known. - Radical interpretation: equality of meaning cannot be assumed, otherwise circle > truth conditions.
Truth/Interpretation/Davidson: the contrast between truth and falsity can only occur in the context of interpretation._____________Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990
D. Davidson Zur Einführung Hamburg 1993
M. Frank (Hrsg.)
Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994
Positionen der Gegenwartsphilosophie. München 2002