Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Search  
 
Author Item Excerpt Meta data

 
Books on Amazon
I 113
Language/Davidson: Conventions and rules do not explain language, language explains them.
---
II 54
Thesis: the term of language is superfluous. There is no such thing as a language, at least not in the sense that many philosophers and linguists claim.
---
Rorty II 21
Davidson/Rorty: "How language works" has little to do with the question "how knowledge works."
DavidsonVsTradition/Rorty: Language no instrumental character system, neither of expression nor representation.
---
Rorty II 21
Davidson: There is no such thing as a language, there is nothing you can learn or master. (Rather provisional theories). No conventions, how we communicate!
Davidson: we should come to worship no one at all, everything, our language, consciousness, community, are products of time and chance.
---
Brandom I 922
Language/Davidson: merely practical, hypothetical necessity, comfortable for community to have it - decisive: how someone would like to be understood - not to make up content before mutual interpretations.
---
Brandom I 518
Language Davidson: interprets linguistic expressions as an aspect of the intentional interpretation of actions - pro top down - Tarski: whether top-down or bottom-up.
---
Dav II 51
Language/Davidson: each is accessible through the causal relationships - ultimately irrelevant for the truth-theory, which is the actual spoken language.
---
Brandom I 454
Language/Davidson/Rorty: not conceptual schema, but causal interaction with the environment - described by the radical interpretation. Then one can no longer ask whether the language "fits" into the world.
---
Rorty III 33
Language/DavidsonVsTradition/Rorty: Language is not medium, neither of expression nor of representation. - Wrong questions: e.g. "What place have values?" - E.g. "Are colors more conscious dependent than weights?". - Correct: "Does our use of these words stand in the way of our use of other words?"
---
Rorty VI 133
Language/Davidson/Rorty: There is no such thing as a language. (> Davidson, "A Nice Derangement of Epitaphs"): there is no set of conventions that one would have to learn when one learns to speak. No abstract structure that must be internalized.
---
Seel2 III 28
Language/Davidson: Thesis: Language is not a medium - but mind without world and world without mind are empty concepts. - Language does not stand between us and the world - seeing: we do not see through the eyes but with them - VsMentalese: does not exist. - Language is part of us. - It is an organ of us. - It is the way we have the world. - Medium/Davidson/Seel: here use is very narrow. - Medium/Gadamer: not an instrument, but an indispensable element of thought.

D I
D. Davidson
Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993

D III
D. Davidson
Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990

D IV
D. Davidson
Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990

Ro I
R. Rorty
Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997

Ro II
R. Rorty
Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000

Ro III
R. Rorty
Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992

Ro IV
R. Rorty
Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum Stuttgart 1993

Ro V
R. Rorty
Solidarität oder Objektivität? Stuttgart 1998

Ro VI
R. Rorty
Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000

Bra I
R. Brandom
Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000

Bra II
R. Brandom
Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001


> Counter arguments against Davidson
> Counter arguments in relation to Language



> Suggest your own contribution | > Suggest a correction | > Export as BibTeX Datei
 
Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2017-05-27